asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Post Office Authorities have received complaints regarding the deliveries of mails to Portree; and, whether a daily post by steamer can be granted during the winter as is done in the summer months?

Representations have, from time to time, been received from Portree respecting the convenience that would be afforded if the steam packet from Strome could run six days a-week throughout the year, instead of six days a-week in summer only and three days a-week at other seasons. A more frequent service in winter is not, however, required for ordinary traffic, and extra trips for mail purposes alone would involve a very large additional outlay, which would not be warranted. In winter, when the steam packet runs only three days a-week, the Mails are sent on the alternate days by Kyleakin Ferry and overland; and, having regard to the amount of correspondence affected, the service afforded to Skye, taken as a whole, cannot be considered unsatisfactory.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the 900 persons stated to be either wholly or partially boycotted in Ireland, If he could inform the House in what proportion this 900 should be divided between the four provinces of Munster, Ulster, Connaught, and Leinster?

I find that of the 900 cases referred to 67 belonged to Ulster, 93 to Connaught, 272 to Leinster, and 468 to Munster.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, looking to the falling off the Revenue arising from the Excise, he will place political and private clubs upon the same footing, in reference to the Excise, as public houses?

, in reply, said, that the falling-off in the Excise Revenue had arisen from a smaller comsumption of alcoholic drinks, and not from the slight decrease which had taken place in the issue of licences. As to the putting on of additional licences, as suggested in the hon. Gentleman's Question, whatever other effect it might have, it would not tend to increase the consumption of alcoholic drinks, which, whatever else might be the case, would be that which would increase the Revenue.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, What answer has been sent by the Postmaster General to a Letter addressed to him by the Right Honourable W. E. Baxter, as published in The Times newspaper, on the subject of the outward American Mails; and, whether any steps have yet been taken to effect the much needed improvement in that important Mail Service?

I can only say, in reply to the Question of the hon. Member, that the subject to which he refers is receiving the careful consideration both of the Postmaster General and of the Treasury.

requested the Secretary to the Treasury, seeing that most of the Irish Members were absent, to postpone any Irish Votes which might be reached to-night.

said, he would be willing to postpone any contentious Irish Votes which might be reached.

asked that the Vote relating to Dover Harbour should not be taken to-night, owing to the absence of many hon. Members interested.

observed, that he could scarcely consent to the request of the right hon. Baronet, when there had been a fortnight's Notice that this Vote would be taken. It had always been the custom of his Predecessors to take, if possible, all the Irish Votes together when the Irish Members could attend.

joined in the appeal to postpone the Dover Vote.

asked what was to be done with the Crofters Bill, Report on which was the 12th Order to-night?

presumed, as the Lord Advocate was not present, the Bill must be postponed.

asked what would be the Business for Thursday?

suggested that the Crofters Bill should be put down as the first Order on Thursday.

said, the Business for Thursday would be either the Crofters Bill or the Railway Rates Bill; but he did not like to speak positively, as the Paime Minister did not return until to-morrow. They could, however, put down both Bills.

though the Railway Rates Bill should not be put down if it was not to be taken.

Then we will say we will take the Railway Rates Bill.

I rise for the purpose of expressing my great surprise, and at the same time my great disappointment, at the answer given by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) to the Question put to him a short time ago by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel). When this Vote was before the Committee on a previous occasion it came on at a late hour, and upon the Vote being proposed from the Chair I moved to report Progress, on the ground that the House at that time could not be expected to deal with advantage with a question which involved in principle the expenditure of an enormous sum of money. Certainly I did not expect on the first day of the reassembling of the House after the Recess, and when, as every hon. Member will see, the Committee is very sparsely attended—I did not expect to find that the Vote for Dover Harbour would be submitted—a Vote which really involves a very large expenditure indeed. [Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.): No.] My hon. Friend says "No;" but it certainly is a Vote which involves in principle the expenditure of an enormous sum of money, and I maintain that it ought not to be asked for in a thin House, and suddenly, when there was no expectation that the Government would attempt to bring on such serious contentious Business as is comprised within this Vote. I may point out to my hon. Friend that the Government have already omitted one Vote in Class I.; and I think that a similar course ought to have been followed in regard to this Vote, so that it might receive full and adequate discussion. The Vote in Class I., which has already been postponed, has reference to the new buildings for the Admiralty and the War Office. The Government would have been fully justified in postponing this Vote also, because they must be fully aware that every argument against discussing the Vote for the Admiralty and War Office buildings now applies equally to the discussion of the Vote for Dover Harbour. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury interrupted me a short time ago in order to dispute my statement that the present Vote involves in principle the expenditure of an enormous sum of money. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend would not have dissented from what I was saying unless he himself entertained the opinion that the adoption of the Vote would not commit the House of Commons to a further large expenditure. I do not know how far I express the views of the right hon. Baronet opposite; but my feeling certainly is that we are being led on from one step to another. In the last Parliament we were induced, without sufficient consideration, in a Committee which did not appear to be very anxious to promote economy, by the influence of my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt), whose power of persuasion is well known to hon. Members, to agree to a Vote which involved a very large expenditure for the erection of a convict prison in Dover. We now find that because that Vote in the last Parliament was passed without due consideration, and with scarcely any discussion — [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby): No.] At any rate it was very carelessly considered by the Committee in the last Parliament; and we are now asked, because the last Parliament was unwise enough, or so inconsiderate, as to enter into a large expenditure for the erection of a convict prison at Dover, to take another step, and to vote a further sum for the purpose of preparing plans and obtaining the information that is necessary in order to enable the Government to construct, at enormous expense, a new harbour at Dover. All I can say is that, personally, I am strongly opposed to the taking of any step which may commit the House of Commons in any way whatever to the cost of constructing a new harbour at Dover until we have had a full and ample discussion of the question. Every hon. Gentleman who has any knowledge of the subject must be aware that if we do commit ourselves to this expenditure, it means an ultimate outlay of from £1,500,000 to £2,000,000, for objects in regard to the utility of which there is some very serious question indeed. Therefore, my feeling is to oppose this Vote, unless my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury is able, from some new light, which I cannot anticipate, to defend and justify it. In the absence of a full and satisfactory explanation from the Government, I shall certainly trouble the Committee to divide against the Vote.

I feel compelled to follow my hon. Friend in the objections which he has raised to this Vote, and in the appeal which he has made to the Secretary to the Treasury to postpone the consideration of it until a better opportunity can be afforded for full discussion. Without entering into the general question, I wish to put to the Committee one point—namely, that when the debate on this subject was postponed in the early part of March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury both admitted that it was a question of very great importance; and so strong was the feeling of the Committee at that moment, that if on the 2nd of March a division had been taken the Government would in all probability have been beaten. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in acknowledging that it was a matter of very great importance, intimated that the Government, while postponing the Vote then, and agreeing to report Progress, would be prepared on a subsequent day to lay their whole plan before Parliament, in order that the country may be able to judge of the position of affairs with respect to this harbour. We are now anxiously waiting for the promised explanation of the Government; but I wish to follow what my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury said just now. He remarked, in reply to a Question put to him, that by agreeing to this small expenditure of £800, in addition to the sum of £200 already voted on account, the Committee and the House of Commons, Parliament and the country, would be pledging themselves to nothing. Now, this is not the occasion, I venture humbly to submit, when the House of Commons should consent to follow the course they are invited to take. We have over and over again, in my long experience of the House of Commons, by voting such small sums in Committee of Supply as that now asked for, found ourselves drawn on and committed, in the end to the principle of sanctioning a very much larger expenditure. On more than one occasion we have been told that by taking such a course we have pledged the House of Commons to a particular scheme. We are now asked to vote £800 to complete a sum of £1,000 for plans and information in connection with the construction of a new harbour at Dover. We were asked last year to vote £16,000 for Peterhead Harbour. That sum of £16,000 involved the agreement of Parliament and the country to a very large expenditure, amounting, in all probability, to considerably more than £500,000. Although it is admitted that the harbour itself is not proposed to be constructed in the best position that could have been selected on the East Coast of Scotland it will probably cost from £750,000 to £1,000,000 before it is completed. Some reference was made the other day to the harbour at Boulogne. I only mention that harbour now to show how a country may be drawn into a large outlay, in the end, by the gradual expenditure of small sums of money at the commencement. It was stated, in the first instance, that Boulogne Harbour would not cost more than 16,000,000f.—the estimate for it, I believe, was 15,000,000f. It has cost something like 17,000,000f. already, and the estimate for the completion of the harbour amounts to something like 32,000,000f Then, again, take the case of Alderney Harbour. I have been long enough in this House to recollect the debates which took place in reference to that harbour. Hundreds of thousands of pounds have been thrown away upon Alderney, and it was well known before the expenditure was commenced that it was impossible to construct a harbour there on account of the strong current of tide which prevailed off that Island. I wish now to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when he proposes to make the statement which the Government are pledged to make in reference to this Vote? I would ask him why he cannot postpone the Vote? I had certainly hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have taken that course, seeing that this is the very first evening of the reassembling of the House after the Recess, and that the House is not as full as it might have been, as it ought to have been, and as it undoubtedly would have been, if it had been known that this question was coming on. If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will not undertake to postpone the Vote I will ask him if he will now, at all events, make a full and explicit statement of the plans the Government propose to undertake, the arrangements they propose to adopt, and what he believes will be the full amount of expenditure upon works in connection with the construction of this commercial harbour at Dover? There is not a sailor in this country who believes that it will be of the slightest use to Her Majesty's ships. No ship would take advantage of that narrow channel. No iron-clad would attempt to sneak or creep into a harbour of refuge at Dover where the Channel is so narrow and the tides are so short. I appeal, then, to the hon. Gentleman if he cannot postpone the Vote now, to make a clean breast of it at once, and to tell the Committee what is proposed to be done and what is the amount of expenditure he expects the country will be called upon to incur in order to carry out this large undertaking,

I wish to point out that some time ago there was a small Vote—I think of £300—which was passed after a short controversy as a preliminary Vote for plans. At that time there was a clear undertaking, as I think, from the Government that before any further sum was asked for on account of Dover Harbour there should be a full discussion upon the scheme, on which occasion we were to be told what the whole amount of the expenditure would be. It must be borne in mind that there are a considerable number of new Members in the House who are altogether unacquainted with the previous history of this harbour, but who know very well how large amounts of money are ultimately swallowed up when a first beginning is made in this way. Before the Committee can accept this Vote I think Her Majesty's Government should give a pledge that information of a very full and explicit character should be given.

I am, perhaps, more responsible than anybody else for this Vote; and therefore I may be allowed to answer the observations which have been made. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) that this matter was not fully discussed in the last Parliament. As a matter of fact, there was a long discussion upon certain Papers which were placed upon the Table in reference to Dover Harbour, and the reasons why Dover had been selected for the construction of a harbour of refuge in preference to Filey were fully explained. The reason why this Vote is taken now is because the works at Portsmouth and Chatham have been brought to a close, and a harbour being wanted on the East Coast we had to consider where the convict labour could be most advantageously employed. Dover has been fixed upon as the place most appropriate for the employment of convicts. Therefore, employment being wanted for the convicts and a harbour being very much required on the East Coast we combined the two requirements, and have fixed upon Dover for the employment of those convicts who need employment. It was upon that ground that a Vote has already been taken for the erection of the convict prison at Dover, which is already in course of construction. It was thoroughly understood, when that Vote was passed, that considerable time would elapse before the prison was completed, and the present Vote is really for the purpose of obtaining information in regard to the site for the harbour. Pains will be taken to examine the site in order to ascertain the nature of the works which will be necessary. Several schemes for the construction of a harbour have been proposed, some of which would, if carried out, involve a much larger expenditure than others. Consequently it is impossible, without a careful engineering examination on the spot, to determine which of the sites should be selected, and which of the proposed plans should be proceeded with. This Vote is really for the sole purpose of obtaining that information. The hon. Member for Frome (Mr. Baker) asks what is the meaning of this Vote, in addition to the sum of £300 taken some weeks ago. Now the Vote of £300 referred to by the hon. Member belongs to exactly the same class of Vote as the present one; but it has been applied only to the concluding months of the preceding financial year. This Vote is for the purpose of continuing those experiments and examinations which everybody knows must be made in connection with works of this kind. The Vote has nothing to do with the works of the harbour itself; it is exclusively confined to the preliminary examinations which are necessary to ascertain what would be the cost of carrying out any of the proposals and plans which have been submitted. It is quite impossible that the information which the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) and other hon. Members desire on this subject can be obtained unless this examination is made, and I hope that the right hon. Baronet and hon. Members will accept the assurance that this Vote, like that which was taken some weeks ago, is a Vote for preliminary examination only.

The words of the Vote are "towards the expenses of constructing a new harbour at Dover."

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is the fact, and that this Vote is precisely of an analogous character to that which was passed some weeks ago, and is only for obtaining preliminary examinations as to the plan which it may be most desirable to carry out. The right hon. Baronet will find upon page 54 of the Estimates a footnote at the bottom of the page, which gives details in connection with preliminary works for Dover Harbour—such as—

"Surveying Site and taking trial borings under water, making inquiries and negotiations for Site, for obtaining Gravel and Sand for Works," &c.

I can assure the Committee that this Vote is solely required for the prelimi- nary examinations as to the site. In order to show that that is so, I may tell the right hon. Baronet that the actual plan of the harbour is not yet settled, and that it is absolutely necessary to make a careful examination of the ground before any such plan can be settled. It will be just as impossible to decide upon a plan until there had been a preliminary examination, as it would be for a man to jump into the water and swim without having been taught the art of swimming. What we require, in the first instance, before consenting to any plan or Estimate of expenditure, is to have a careful survey of this character made, without which no real work of a practical nature can be undertaken. I hope that hon. Members will be satisfied with this explanation, and will allow the Vote to pass.

I quite admit the force of what the right hon. Gentleman has stated, and I perceive that in addition to the note upon page 54, which the right hon. Gentleman has read, there is this further note—

"The plan of the works to be undertaken not being settled, an estimate of the total cost cannot yet be made."

I wish to know if this is the last sum which will be wanted for preliminary examinations. We have already voted one sum on account, and we are now asked to vote £800 in addition. I desire to have some assurance that this will be the last sum we shall be called upon to vote for preliminary inquiries.

I certainly should not be satified with the slight assurance asked by my right hon. Friend below me (Sir Henry Holland). I should like to know what the grounds were upon which the Government decided upon removing the convicts from Portsmouth and Chatham to Dover, and upon constructing a prison for them there, unless it was to construct a large and sufficient harbour; but it seems now such was not the case. It appears, therefore, anomalous to construct barracks for the reception of convicts before it has been settled that a harbour is to be constructed. Her Majesty's Government asked, in the first instance, that there should be a considerable grant of money for building a prison for convicts at Dover. If I recollect the debate which took place on that very important question, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), who was then President of the Board of Trade, stated distinctly that it was to be a commercial harbour; that a large sum of money would be found by a Company; and that probably some little alterations would be required in the Admiralty Pier. We all know what that Admiralty Pier cost; but we were never led at that time to believe that an enormous sum of money was going to be expended out of the taxation of the people of the United Kingdom for the purpose of constructing a new harbour.

That is not the case as far as this Vote is concerned.

The hon. Gentleman says that is not so; but, as far as I recollect, it is absolutely so. The Government have already determined that they will build a barrack for the accommodation of convicts at Dover, and we are now told that they decided upon taking that step before they took the trouble to find out whether it is desirable to have a harbour there or not. If a harbour is to be erected there, it must necessarily be one capable of affording accommodation for very large ships; and, in addition to being a harbour for large ships of war, there ought to be a commercial harbour combined with it.

There is a Paper on the Table of the House giving plans of the "harbour" and the number of ships it will hold, together with the moorings for them. That Paper can be seen in the Library, and also a rough estimate of the cost of each of the plans which have been submitted.

If I recollect aright one plan proposes that the harbour should cover 150 acres of water.

150 acres of deep water.

No; altogether, if I recollect rightly; and there was some doubt as to whether it would be possible to obtain all the accommodation that was required. Certainly it will cost a very enormous sum to make a harbour of this character; and all I want to know is what the Government intend to commit the House to? I understand it is proposed to throw out a wall of nearly a mile in length towards the coast of France. All I ask is that before the House of Commons is committed to any particular scheme, or the expenditure of any large sum of money is undertaken, we shall have some authoritative statement that the harbour, when constructed, will be of use not only to the Navy, but also for commercial purposes. For these reasons I think we ought to have some more explicit information from the Government than we have yet received. I do not say that I will vote against this sum of money being granted if we have good reasons for granting it; but, at the same time, I do not like to commit myself even to such a small sum as this until I know what other sum is likely to be asked for.

I certainly hope that the Committee will not agree to the Vote, because I believe that it will only be the beginning of an enormous expenditure. We have been told that the cost of constructing a harbour at Dover would be something like £1,100,000; but from all the information which I have been able to obtain I am induced to believe that it will cost at least £2,000,000. In its proposed form the area of the harbour is small, and wholly insufficient for receiving large vessels of war. The construction of a harbour was recommended in 1844 and 1846; and on the action of Sir Robert Peel, then First Lord of the Treasury, several eminent engineers, nine in number, were employed to obtain information, and they prepared estimates and plans, one of which put the cost at £4,000,000, and another at £1,100,000, and the other seven engineers varied between these sums. That wide margin shows the difficulty which exists in preparing an estimate for works of much magnitude. Indeed, it is almost impossible for an engineer to say what the amount of the expenditure will be. These plans, estimates, and Reports are in the Library of the House; and an examination thereof will conclusively show that the Government prudently gave up this great project. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us this Vote is only for preliminary information and examination. But I must point out that we have full information available in the Library as to the soil, tides, and depth of water of Dover Bay. We have already had a sum of money voted in March last; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer then informed us that that Vote would not pledge the House of Commons to any plan for the construction of a harbour at Dover. But every additional sum is used as a plea for going on with the works. But I should like to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of what occurred in July, 1873. A Vote was then taken for £10,000 in connection with the preliminary expenses; and though the Vote was passed by only 61 for it and 60 against it, yet the Government proceeded with the project. Since then the present Chancellor of the Exchequer obtained a grant for a building for the reception of the convicts who were to be employed at Dover. It is the Liberal, and not the Conservative, Party who urges on this vast scheme, mainly at the dictation of Lord Granville, who is Chairman of the Dover Harbour Board. After the Conservative Party dropped the project in 1875, then, in 1878, Earl Granville brought forward the question of Dover Harbour in the House of Lords; and I would ask hon. Members to read the debate which took place on that occasion, in order that they may know how useless and unnecessary it is to construct a harbour at all. I particularly refer to the masterly speech of Lord Beaconsfield as unanswerable.

There are two questions raised by this Vote, one of which I think might be withdrawn altogether from the consideration of the Committee. The Vote purports to be a Vote towards the expense of constructing a new harbour at Dover; but I understand the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that that is not the object of the Vote at all. The object is governed by the foot note at the bottom of the Estimate, which states that the money is required for—

"Surveying Site and taking trial borings under water; making negotiations for Site, for obtaining Gravel and Sand for Works," &c.

Under these circumstances, I would suggest that it might be possible to amend the words of the Vote so that the Committee might not bind themselves to the construction of a harbour there, in which case it will not be necessary to devote any length of time to the discussion of the present Vote. I would suggest that it should be made quite clear that the Vote is for the expenses of a preliminary survey of the site for the projected new harbour. I should certainly vote against any proposal which would commit the House of Commons to an enormous expenditure, without our knowing what that expenditure is to be, and having plans of the works before us. At the same time, if it is made clear that the Vote is only for the expenses of a preliminary survey the demand made upon the Committee may be perfectly reasonable.

I am quite ready to alter the words of the Vote, so as to make it appear that the Vote itself is limited to a preliminary survey with respect to the harbour at Dover. If that can be done I am quite willing to accept such a limitation of the Vote.

Will the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) bring up his words?

The words I suggest are these—

"Towards the expenses of a preliminary survey of the site for the projected new harbour at Dover."

I wish to ask if it is in accordance with the practice of Committee of Supply for any private Member to move an Amendment in a Supply Resolution proposed by the Government of the day? I do not know what the practice is; but I have no recollection of any such Amendment having been proposed, and I am under the impression that the only Amendment which can be moved is to reduce the Vote. I should like to point out what this comes to. The Government have asked for a Vote of money for a certain purpose, and the Vote is asked for on the responsibility of the Government. Is it competent, then, for any hon. Member to get up and say that the House of Commons will not grant the money for the purpose for which it is asked, but that it will grant it for another purpose? That appears to me to be a precedent which, as far as I know, is now proposed to be set for the first time. I would suggest that if the Government desire to alter their proposal in the direction suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) it would be better that they should withdraw the Vote for the present, and should bring it forward in another form on a future occasion, thereby avoiding the inconvenient results which might follow on a future occasion from their having assented to a Government Vote in Committee of Supply being altered on the Motion of a private Member.

I also rise for the purpose of pointing out the inconvenience that would arise if we were to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), and were to alter the Vote in the way in which it has been proposed. It is quite clear that according to the heading of the Vote it is for the purpose of constructing a new harbour at Dover; although, of course, I accept the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that is not the case, and that the £800 is to be applied merely for the purpose of defraying the expense of making preliminary surveys in connection with the construction of such a harbour. But when the right hon. Gentleman says that this is only a small Vote of £800, I beg to remind the Committee that the House of Commons has already voted more than £39,000 in respect of the preliminary proceedings necessary before the construction of a new harbour at Dover can be undertaken, and especially in connection with the erection of a convict barracks. For the last 50 years plans for a harbour at this spot have been continually submitted to Parliament. According to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer we have already voted £39,000 in connection with this project; and in addition to that sum in 1873, under the Administration of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), the House of Commons voted £10,000 for the purpose of taking preliminary steps towards preparing plans for the construction of a harbour at Dover. Fortunately the pro- posal was one which the Government of the Earl of Beaconsfield subsequently declined to entertain. I have, therefore, risen for the purpose of supporting the views of my noble Friend on the Front Opposition Bench (Lord Randolph Churchill); and I would suggest that if the Government have changed their minds upon the subject of this Vote it would be better that they should withdraw it, and re-introduce it in an amended form, rather than that they should assent to its being amended by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). I am certainly of opinion that any alteration of the Vote should proceed from the Government themselves rather than from a private Member. In this case the Government are changing the very name and character of the Vote, and are asking the Committee to assent to the alteration.

After the observations of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) I am quite ready to admit that, for the purpose of preventing misapprehension, the Vote had better be withdrawn and reintroduced on a future occasion. There ought to be no doubt or difficulty as to the practice of the Committee in a matter of this importance. I cannot agree, however, with the remark of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel) that the Government have changed their minds with regard to the character of this Vote. I think the note at the foot of the Vote shows clearly enough what has always been the intention in proposing the Vote. All the Government desire is that the Vote should be postponed, with the view of its being so drawn as to express clearly the purpose for which the money asked for is to be applied. I beg to move that the Vote be withdrawn.

Upon the point of Order which has been raised I have to point out that although it has been extremely rare to alter the terms of a Resolution in Committee of Supply, yet there appears to be a precedent for it. A similar question was raised on May 18, 1863. Exception was then taken to a particular Vote which had been proposed, and it was desired to limit its application. It was held by the Chairman, after discussion, that a Motion in Committee of Supply made by a private Member with regard to a Government Vote was in Order, provided that it merely proposed to limit the purposes for which the Vote was designed.

I would appeal to the Government not to postpone this Vote, which is intended merely to defray the preliminary expenses of survey for what is undoubtedly an important national work. It is perfectly clear that if the preliminary survey is to be postponed from time to time the date for the completion of the harbour will be very distant. The present Vote is simply to pay the expenses of a survey for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the bottom, and I do hope that the Government will not assent to any further delay.

I may remind the hon. and gallant Member that it is not proposed to postpone the consideration of the Vote because the Government entertain any doubt with regard to it, nor have they any intention of withdrawing it absolutely; but they merely assented to the suggestion that it should be postponed in order that it may be brought up in an altered form. I may say that it will certainly be brought up again on the next stage of Supply. The question of the construction of a harbour at Dover has already been decided. That question was fully discussed in 1873, and in accordance with the decision arrived at a convict prison has already been built at Dover. The House of Commons has already decided that convict labour is to be employed in the construction of the new harbour at Dover.

No; the question of constructing a harbour at Dover was not decided on that occasion.

I say "Yes." Further than that, in the year 1883 the House came to a similar decision without a division; and I would appeal to the hon. and gallant Member for North West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) whether on that Occasion he did not express his approval of the large scheme which the Government proposed? I may mention, for the information of those hon. Members who were not Members of the last Parliament, that the Government proposed a Vote for the cost of erecting a convict prison at Dover, and that Parliament passed the Vote. That convict prison is now nearly finished, and I believe that accommodation is provided in it for from 200 to 300 convicts. On the occasion to which I refer the House of Commons practically determined what should be done with regard to the employment of convict labour, and what is asked for to-night is that Parliament should have placed before it the result of the preliminary survey and the plans for the construction of a harbour, so that the House of Commons may determine upon the plan to be carried out. There can be no misconception about the matter. A convict prison has been built at Dover, and the convicts are there. As, however, I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) that there is some little misconception as to the precise nature of this Vote, having regard to the actual wording of it, I think the Vote itself might be postponed, and brought up again on the next occasion when the House is in Committee of Supply.

I cannot quite reconcile the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with that of the Secretary to the Treasury. The statement of the Secretary to the Treasury entirely alters the position of affairs, and I find myself in this difficulty. The Committee were assured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this further Vote was of a tentative character, and was merely intended to cover the expense of a preliminary inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining whether it is desirable or possible to build this harbour at Dover at all; whereas the Secretary to the Treasury has asserted that the question was irrevocably decided by the last Parliament; that, whether we like it not, our hands are tied in the matter; that the present Parliament are committed to a very large expenditure, and that the only question for consideration now is how great that expenditure shall be. Those are two entirely different statements, and I want to know which we are to regard as accurate? I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the preliminary expenditure was to be incurred for the purpose of seeing where the harbour should be built, and whether it was desirable to build it. As a new Member of the House, who did not have the advantage of sitting in the last Parliament, I have ventured to ask the Government for information.

I remember very well the discussion taking place which has been referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and I must say that I think it is rather late now for those hon. Members who swallowed the camel to strain so much at a very small gnat. As to whether the Government have made up their minds practically as to whether there shall be a harbour or not at Dover that is another question. I know that two or three years ago a discussion took place, and a large sum of money was voted for the purpose of building a barracks for the occupation of the convicts who were to construct the harbour. After having consented to spend something like £40,000 upon the convict prison, it would be carrying economy to a ridiculous point to dispute this very small sum of £800 in order to ascertain whether further works ought to be undertaken or not. I believe that when the Vote for the convict prison was taken the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was not in his place, and the Vote was passed without a division; and I do not see why we should squabble now over the price which we agreed to pay.

I beg to assure the Committee that the assent of Parliament has never yet been given to the construction of a harbour at Dover. No doubt the Hybrid Committee which in 1875 considered the matter recommended that, should works be undertaken at Dover, the area should be enlarged at an extra cost of £130,000, raising the Estimate from £970,000 to £1,100,000; but the Government of the day refused to carry out the recommendation of that Committee. Indeed, that harbour project was one of a strange character, for it was one in which the two railways, the Dover Harbour Board, and the Government were so mixed up that, whilst the two sets of partners had their money responsibilities and their rights clearly defined, the rights of Government were vague and the financial claims unlimited. Further than that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he made a speech in reference to the erection of barracks for the occupation of convicts at Dover, about three years ago, distinctly stated that the construction of that prison did not involve the sanction of the House of Commons to the erection of a harbour. Until full information has been given to the House, and the plans, estimates, and Reports have been laid before the Committee of Supply in a detailed form by a responsible Department of the State, I venture to submit that no Vote for the erection of harbour works ought to be taken.

I think that there ought to be no misapprehension upon this point. My hon. and gallant Friend behind me (Sir George Balfour) has generally a most excellent memory; but on this occasion I think it has failed him. The Vote which was taken three years ago not only had reference to this subject, but there was a Treasury Minute, dated July 17, 1883, in which the whole facts of the case are stated. In the speech which I made on the 16th of August in the same year I referred to this matter. I stated that two harbours had been proposed to be constructed, one being a small one, which could be constructed at a comparatively small cost, and the other a large one, that would necessarily cost more to construct. There is another hon. and gallant Member of this House whose memory, although generally accurate, seems somehow to have failed him upon this occasion—I refer to the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot)—who has made a semi-hostile speech against the Vote to-night. But what did the hon. and gallant Member say when I proposed the construction of a harbour at Dover in 1883? The hon. and gallant Member said—

"He had always taken great interest in Dover Harbour; and he had always thought that if the harbour was to be made, it ought not to be made by a Company, but, as far as possible, by the Government, who ought to make a harbour worthy of the nation. Looking at the present scheme"—

What was the "present scheme?" Of course it was the scheme which I proposed to the House on that date—

"Looking at the present scheme in all the circumstances under which it was proposed, he thought it was the best way in which the matter could be dealt with, Nobody would deny that a harbour for the protection of their ships was absolutely necessary; and this consideration would have very great weight, not only for ships of war, but also for ships of all kinds, for the trade and commerce of the country. Believing that the scheme the Government had now put forward"—

What scheme? The scheme for the construction of a harbour at Dover?—

"Believing that the scheme the Government had now put forward, if properly and promptly carried out, was calculated to be of great benefit to the country, he should, therefore, cordially support the Vote."—(3 Hansard, [283] 771.)

Having made that speech in favour of building a convict prison, the hon. and gallant Member now gets up and objects to a small Vote for the expenses of a preliminary inquiry as to the character of this harbour. What is the harbour? My hon. and gallant Friend behind me (Sir George Balfour) pointed out what is quite true, that there has been great uncertainty as to the character of the harbour. It is really a breakwater. [Mr. EYLANBS: So it is at Portland.] All harbours are in a certain sense breakwaters; but the whole character of this harbour was fully brought before the House in 1883. Nothing can be more distinct than my statement to the House on that occasion when I asked for the money for the construction of a convict prison in order to make a harbour at Dover by convict labour. I said—

"The matter had been considered by a Committee of the Cabinet, consisting of the Secretary of State for War, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and they had come to the conclusion that the first works that ought to be undertaken were those at Dover. The estimated cost of one plan was £790,000; but that would only be sufficient for the construction of a harbour which would afford comparatively little accommodation for the iron-clads. The recommendation of the Committee of 1875, of which his hon. and gallant Friend was a Member, examined some of the highest authorities who could be found, including the Hydrographer of the Navy, Sir A. Clark, the eminent engineer, and Mr. Druce, the engineer at Dover, who was well acquainted with the whole history of Dover Harbour. All those eminent men were in favour of the present proposal; and, therefore, they had as high authority in support of it as could be desired."—(Ibid. 765.)

I will not trouble the Committee further by reading the whole of that speech; but I want to show that the whole character of the harbour was fully brought before the House in 1883, and on the basis of the recommendation of a Departmental Committee a Treasury Minute was laid on the Table of the House in reference to these alternative harbours. Now, before Parliament is committed either to the larger or the smaller harbour—[Sir ROBERT PEEL: Or to any.] Or to any; of course the House can always stop. Whether it will be wise or not it will be for the House to consider; but it is always within its power to take that step. It might have stopped the erection of the Houses of Parliament after having completed one-half of the building. At present neither Her Majesty's Government nor the House have yet come to a final decision with regard to the carrying out of the works. It is our desire to investigate the character of the works before the works themselves are finally resolved upon, and it is upon that principle that we ask for this Vote. I think I have now stated to the Committee exactly how the matter stands.

I think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has placed the matter in a more reasonable light than that in which it was left by the Secretary to the Treasury. The Secretary to the Treasury seemed to imply in his speech that by the passing of this Vote Parliament and the country would, to a greater or less extent, commit itself to a further expenditure. We are now given to understand that it is the intention of the Government, on the first day upon which the Civil Service Estimates are again taken, to put this Vote down. We further understand that by the present Vote the Committee are committing themselves to nothing but giving the Government funds to enable them to have additional information placed before the House of Commons, together with such plans and estimates as may, in the opinion of the Government, be desirable. When Parliament is in possession of those plans and estimates it will be for the House to say, if the Government decide to go on with the work, whether or not it shall be proceeded with. Upon that first Vote, with the entire estimate and plans before the House, it will be at liberty to reject the Vote if it thinks fit. I think that is a fair position, and I do not think it is necessary that we should carry the matter further.

expressed a hope that the Committee would receive a complete assurance from the Government before the debate closed that no steps would be taken to proceed with the works until the assent of Parliament had been fully obtained.

I wish to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before the Vote is withdrawn, that in the discussion which occurred earlier in the Session upon this question the very same argument which has been put forward now was employed. Though I trust entirely to my memory, I think I am right in saying that assurances were given that the House were in no degree pledged to the considerable outlay which the carrying out of the scheme would involve. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has emphasized the fact that we have already spent £38,000 or £39,000 in connection with the construction of a convict prison and in preliminary proceedings in reference to this harbour. But it does not follow that the new House of Commons should be committed to the expenditure of £1,000,000, even although a convict prison has been built. Unless there is far more enthusiasm and a better informed opinion obtained in regard to the harbour at Dover, I think it would be infinitely cheaper to apply a little dynamite to the convict prison, and leave the convicts to the tender care of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I trust that the Committee have now a distinct understanding that the Government are only entering upon a preliminary inquiry, and that we are not by any means to go the entire length to which my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury seeks to carry us. When the preliminary inquiries have been completed let us discuss the matter on its merits, and let it be understood, as the result of the discussion which has now taken place, that we are to have absolute liberty to consider the whole question when it is hereafter brought before us in a formal manner.

There is no objection on the part of the Irish Members to have this Vote taken now. The Vote itself is not of a contentious character.

I asked for information in regard to an item contained in the Vote in reference to the erection of a fishery pier.

said, he would inquire into the matter. He believed that it had already undergone discussion, and that a Report had been laid upon the Table.

I am very sorry to see that in this Vote we are asked to agree to a sum of money being paid for the purchase of an Embassy House at Madrid. I commented upon the extravagance of this Vote last year, and I observe that in the present Vote we are expected to grant a sum of money for the Embassy at Madrid, which amounts altogether to £15,500, of which a sum of £12,000 is required for the purchase of a Legation House. There are, I understand, some further charges in connection with that purchase. I object, and I have objected on many previous occasions, to the expenditure which has been incurred by the Government from time to time in regard to these Embassy Houses abroad. We have been in the habit in former years of hiring, renting, and leasing houses, which have been amply sufficient for the purposes of the Embassy; and the consequence of our building a house or buying one has frequently been that we obtain a place which is very much larger than is required for the ordinary purposes of the Embassy. When the property belongs to the country the Ambassador or Minister manifests a desire to extend the establishment, probably in accordance with the number of his family, possibly to gratify the vanity of his wife, and constant applications are made to the Government for alterations and extensions, the result of which is that unnecessary and large repairs are made in these establishments, which tend to swell every year the very large sum of money the Committee are called upon to vote. Without going at length into the history of this transaction, I do not hesitate to say that in former years, in connection with these purchases, hundreds of thousands of pounds of the public money have been wasted; and we have now in different parts of the world Embassies maintained with great splendour and at very heavy cost. If the expenditure in connection with the Embassy Houses for the accommodation of our Representatives in Foreign Courts could be contrasted with the expenditure of the United States for similar purposes, every hon. Member would be astonished at our extravagance when compared with the economy of our brethren across the Atlantic, who have equally great interests to protect. The Government of the United States know very well how to maintain their Representatives; but they have not the slightest conception of squandering the money of the American people for purposes of this kind in the way we are doing. I think the time may probably come, if the policy of this country becomes one of non-intervention, when we may think it unnecessary to keep up these enormous establishments abroad, and be content with renting houses in the different capitals of Europe. In that case it may be considered desirable to dispense with them when they are found no longer necessary. But here we are called upon to add to our responsibilities by the purchase of a Legation House which we have hitherto been content to hire on lease. I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken to satisfy the Government, in the first place, as to the necessity of the purchase; what economy will be effected by substituting an Embassy House belonging to this country in place of continuing to rent the building already occupied; and also whether the sum of £12,000 which appears in the present Vote is the whole sum we shall be called upon to pay for this property, or whether there are other sums behind this sum of £12,000 which at some subsequent period the House of Commons will be required to vote?

I should like also to ask for information in reference to this Vote. If my hon. Friend had looked into the various items which constitute the Vote, he would have found a sum of £1,200 for making good the damage to the Embassy House caused by excavations for City sewers, and a further item of £1,500 for the completion of sanitary and other special works. I want to know if that outlay is upon the new house or upon the old one? I also wish to point out to the Committee that the rent of the old Legation House appears to have been £250 a-year, which, at 20 years' purchase, would represent a capital of £5,000. We are now asked to start with a capital of £12,000, with another considerable item for damage done in connection with the drains and sewers of the City. I think that these items go very far in the direction of emphasizing the objections which my hon. Friend has raised to entering upon a capital purchase of this house, and against allowing the various Ministers abroad to indulge their fancy in incurring a large outlay of money for which the taxpayers of this country are to be responsible. I hope my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, or my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, will be able to throw some further light upon the matter.

On the whole, I really believe it is cheaper to buy houses for the accommodation of our Representatives rather than to rent them. Take, for instance, this house at Madrid, the purchase of which is to cost £12,000. That capital sum at 3 per cent would amount to £360 per annum; but last year we paid very considerably more than that sum. Then we must take into consideration not only the rent, but the cost of repairs and other expenses. Last year we rented this house, and we spent £200 in casual and ordinary repairs, and other expenses were incurred which brought up the total to £600 during the year. The real point we should study is to keep down the expenses of our Ministers as far as possible. When a new Minister is sent out it is invariably found that he is displeased with the establishment which has satisfied his predecessor, and he wants some sort of change. If that kind of desire could be kept down I really believe that we should gain more by purchasing these houses than by renting them.

I should like to know what we have to do with the item of £12,000 which appears in the Vote for making good the damage occasioned to the Legation House by excavations for the City sewers? As the landlords are the City of Madrid, I do not see what we have to do with making any damage of this kind good. I hope the Government will be able to give some information upon the matter.

I think the figures which I shall be able to give the Committee will show that the Government have been actuated by a desire to make the best bargain possible; and I think the Committee will agree with me that the bargain which has been made is not a very bad one. I am not going to defend the principle of buying the house against the principle of renting it. I think the best plan is to take each individual case as it occurs, and see what course will be the most economical and most satisfactory course in the interests of the country. The rent of the Embassy House at Madrid was not £250 a-year, as has been stated, but was £600 a-year; and, as the lease was within a year of expiring, it was expected that the rent would be raised from £600 to £1,000 a-year; so that, practically, we have obtained the house for 12 years' purchase, which I do not think is at all an extravagant price. I may mention that the house which has been purchased is the same house that was previously rented. I believe it has been calculated that the piece of ground alone on which the house stands may be valued at £8,000; and, therefore, it cannot be said that the sum of £12,000 agreed upon as the purchase money is an extravagant sum. As to the item of £1,500 for the completion of sanitary and other special works, I may explain that one of the works undertaken was the making of a new roof. The roof had been allowed to fall very much out of repair, and it was thought absolutely necessary that a new roof should be put upon the building. In regard to the item of £1,200 for making good the damage to the house caused by excavations for the City sewers, I may say that the Government tried all they could to be released from that payment, and to throw it upon the Municipality of Madrid, or upon the Spanish Government; but they found that it was impossible to do so, seeing that they were bound under the lease to do the repairs. They were advised by proper legal authorities that they were absolutely helpless in the matter, and I am not sure that we have yet paid all that we may be called upon to pay. On the contrary, I believe there are some further claims which have not yet been settled. There is no other point which occurs to me as requiring explanation, and I hope the Committee will consider the information I have given satisfactory.

I hope that some further information will be given in regard to this house, the ground of which is said to be worth £8,000. We appear to have expended a large sum last year in repairing damage done by excavations for sewers, and also a considerable sum for sanitary and other works. The expenditure appears to have been very considerable, seeing that we were not the owners of the house; and although it is now proposed that we should become the owners, I think some further explanation is required as to the expenditure which has already taken place. The whole value of the house appears to be £12,000, and yet we have had to pay £1,200 for repairs in consequence of excavations in connection with the City sewers, and £1,500 for sanitary works.

We leased the house for a term of 10 years at £600 a-year, and we bound ourselves to perform all the necessary repairs, even to the renewal of sashes. Better terms could not be obtained. It has been an unfortunate lease for the lessee. There have been continual objections to it, and I can assure the Committee that the Embassy House at Madrid has been a very anxious question indeed. It is considered that this is the best way of meeting the difficulty. If we do not purchase the house we shall be compelled to rent it at a larger price than we think we ought to pay.

I should like to know whether the purchase of this house has been recommended by Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid? I understand that the same house has been in the occupation of the Legation for the last 10 years; but if I recollect rightly—and I was for some years connected with the Legation—it is very inconveniently situated indeed. We used formerly to occupy a house which was much better situated. I understand that the present house is in a most inconvenient and narrow street, and I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it has been examined by any architect or any official connected with the Government?

I am informed that not only has the house been strongly recommended by Sir John Walsham and Sir Robert Morier, but that the Board of Works sent out one of their own surveyors to examine it, and he was satisfied that it would be a suitable house for the Legation.

I know the Legation House at Madrid very well, and it is certainly a good house for occupation, and every other purpose to which it is devoted. Although part of the street in which it is situated is narrow, yet it is a good street for Madrid, and in that city narrow streets possess in many cases some advantages, because where the thoroughfare is broad the sun is so powerful as to cause illness, and sometimes death. I, for one, maintain that this is a suitable house, and I think the Government have pursued a wise course in purchasing a residence for our Minister. I am opinion that they would do right if they were to purchase Embassy Houses in all places where we do not possess one.

(Kincardine): I cannot say that I think the explanation which has been given in regard to the money laid out upon this building for repairs and making good damages in addition to the rent is at all satisfactory.

I should like to know, before this Vote is taken, in what manner the employment of solicitors to conduct prosecutions is regulated by the Treasury? I quite understand that there are prosecutions conducted by the Public Prosecutor. The prosecutions conducted by the Treasury Solicitor are also clear; but there are, in addition, prosecutions conducted by private solicitors, under instructions from Scotland Yard, which do, or at any rate did, figure in the Votes. I should like to know whether any such accounts figure in the Votes now; and, if they do not, how long that has ceased to be the case? If they do appear in the Votes, I should like to know what kind of rule governs the employment of solicitors in public prosecutions?

I may explain that, under the Act passed last year, all public prosecutions are now practically under the control of the Solicitor to the Treasury. It is in the discretion of the Solicitor to the Treasury to conduct prosecutions himself, or to employ legal agents for that purpose. The opinion of the Committee which sat upon the question was that, as far as London and the neighbourhood are concerned, it is not necessary to employ any other solicitor than the Solicitor to the Treasury, and they expressed their disapprobation of any other course being adopted; but in Manchester, Liverpool, and other large towns, it is left to his discretion to employ other individuals who are paid on agency terms, and, therefore, only receive half of the costs, the other half being paid into the Public Exchequer. I believe that the existing arrangements are not only working satisfactorily, but economically. The Department of Public Prosecutor has, however, not been in existence sufficiently long to enable any outside opinion to be expressed as to what the ultimate result of the change will be. In the course of another year we shall probably be able to form a conclusion.

The answer of the hon. Gentleman is thoroughly satisfactory as far as it goes; but I wish to know if the Committee are to understand that there is now no longer within the Metropolitan District a possibility of three sets of persons being employed to institute prosecutions on behalf of the Crown? Are the whole of the prosecutions under the control of the Solicitor to the Treasury?

Yes.

I find that the Vote includes expenses connected with the Statute Law Revision Committee; but there is no information given as to the state of the Revision, or of the progress which is being made with it. Matters appear to be allowed to go on from year to year; and, though nothing is done, yet expenses are incurred without the slightest information being given in regard to what is being done. I wish further to know if it is not possible to obtain the Statutes which have been revised at a moderate price, and also the Index now presented and prepared at the cost of Government?

I may explain that the revision of the Statutes has been completed down to the year 1878; but it is necessarily a slow and expensive work. The revised edition cannot, therefore, well be sold at a less price than at present, for I need hardly say that the work is not remunerative.

I do not think that the price of the Statutes which have been revised and published ought to be very considerable. I am not satisfied, however, with the explanation of the hon. Gentleman.

I wish to obtain some explanation from the Government in regard to this Vote. The Vote includes the salaries of the officials in the Central Office of the Supreme Court. Two or three years ago I took the opportunity of calling the attention of the Committee to the very large expenditure which had been incurred in connection with the Central Office, and to the fact that the officials of that Department of the Supreme Court were very partially employed, and that there was a great waste of expenditure in consequence of too large a number of persons being employed in the duty which devolves on that Department of the High Court. In reply to the remarks I made on that occasion, the present Lord Chancellor, the then Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell), admitted that the facts which I brought before the Committee were correct. He stated that it was impossible to justify the expenditure which was being incurred in this Department, and he agreed that under the arrangements of the Department too many officials were employed, and that there was room for considerable economy. He promised that the matter should be very carefully inquired into, with the view of securing the re-organization of the Department. I think I have mentioned the subject once or twice since; but, so far as appears from the Vote, the criticisms which have been made have not had the slightest effect upon the expenditure. On the contrary, I perceive that there has been an annual increment of salary rather than a reduction, and a general increase of expenditure. The point on which I wish to ask for information from the Secretary to the Treasury now is this — I think the pledge which the Government made to me has been carried out to this extent—that there has been an official inquiry instituted, and I believe that some Committee or other authority has been engaged in an investigation in order to see how far an impression may be made on the expenditure. Before proceeding further with my criticism of the Vote, I think my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury should tell the Committee what steps have been taken. I am alluding to the Central Office of the Supreme Court, which commences on page 211 of the Estimates, about half-way down the page. It will be seen that it includes some of the Taxing Officers, in regard to which there were complaints on the last occasion the Vote was under discussion. I trust that my hon. Friend will be able to give the Committee some information as to the steps which have been taken, even if he cannot tell us what the result of the inquiry has been, and what measures the Government intend to take with a view of reducing the redundancy of officials in this Department, and to secure the economy which I think might very well be secured by introducing a change.

I wish that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), whose care and accuracy in these matters we all know, had been kind enough to do what our Scotch Friends call "condescend upon particulars." I happen to know something about the Supreme Court of Justice; I have spent a good many gloomy hours there; but I have still to discover what class of officials is too numerous and too highly paid. There was some slight suggestion made by the hon. Member in reference to the Taxing Master's Office; but I have heard from that Office complaints that the officials have too much to do, and that they have not time enough to do it in. The assertion, therefore, comes with astonishment upon me that they are overpaid, and too numerous. As the House is in Committee, the hon. Member has not exhausted his power of speaking; and, therefore, in the course of the discussion he will, perhaps, be good enough to tell us which of these officers are overworked and too highly paid? He has told us that the Lord Chancellor (Lord Herschell) agreed with his views when he raised the question some time ago; but I am certainly very much surprised to hear that these humble, modest, and respectable officers are overpaid. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh) knows as much about that matter as I do, and his abilities are much better recognized than mine. Perhaps he will be able to bear out the experience I have gained of these officials, which certainly leads me to believe that, considering the work they have to do, and the position they occupy, they are neither too numerous nor too highly paid. I am afraid that the opinion of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would not carry that weight with it which it might otherwise have unless he is kind enough to inform the Committee which of the officials of the Supreme Court his criticisms apply to.

I think that if the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had only carefully studied the Vote which he has ventured to criticize he would have found on the very page he has cited an explanation quite sufficient to answer his own remarks. It is clearly set forth, on page 211 of the Estimates, that there are six first-class clerks, one of whom is paid upon the old scale of from £600 to £700 a-year, whereas all the other five are paid on the new scale from £500 to £600 a-year. It is the same with regard to the clerks in the other classes. For instance, in the third class there are three paid upon the old scale of £200 a-year, and three upon the new scale of £100 a-year; and the same distinction appears throughout. Whenever a vacancy occurs the old scale is abandoned, and the new scale is brought into operation. So that there is a constant reduction taking place; and there is, therefore, no ground, as far as I can see, for the indefinite and vague complaint which the hon. Member for Burnley has made. But with regard to this Vote I should be glad to elicit some information from the hon. Gentleman in charge of it as to what the Government propose to do in reference to the number of Judges and the Circuit arrangements. During the whole of last century 12 Judges were sufficient to transact the business of the country; and during the earlier years of this century—I believe down to the year 1830—the Judges for the Common Law and Criminal business numbered only 12. About the year 1830 the number was raised to 15, specially with regard to the necessities of the Circuit arrangements. Afterwards, when the House of Commons delegated to the Judges the duty of hearing Election Petitions, the number was raised from 15 to 18; but, in the meantime, the population had considerably increased also. When the Judicature Act established the Court of Appeal three Judges were told off as Appeal Judges, and it was necessary to make a further increase of the total number. The Circuit arrangements were somewhat modified at that time, but not very considerably. The rule was that the two Judges went to each of the seven or eight Circuits; North and South Wales being considered one, and having two Judges between them. The Circuit arrangements were still considered unsatisfactory, and another alteration was made, by which the single Judge system was instituted; and the consequence of this single Judge system has been that, although we have had a sufficient number of Judges remaining in London for continuous sittings, upon the Circuits we have had the delay, which was foreseen at the time the Order in Council, establishing the system, was issued. We had a very signal illustration of that in the South-Eastern Circuit at Chelmsford last year, when Mr. Baron Huddleston found himself quite unable to cope with the business at the different towns on the Home Circuit, and was compelled, at great inconvenience to everybody concerned, to make arrangements which inflicted great hardship upon many persons who had business at the Assizes, and especially upon the witnesses. An Order in Council enables a Judge, when alone upon a Circuit, if he finds himself unable to get through the criminal work of any particular Assize, to postpone the Commission day at the next Assize town. In this case Mr. Baron Huddleston found it absolutely impossible to get through the work which had to be done at Norwich, and he was, therefore, compelled to postpone the Commission day at Chelmsford, and also at Hertford, Maidstone, and Lewes. At Lewes it did not very much matter, because it was the end of the Assize; but all the witnesses, prisoners, and everybody who were required to be in attendance at Hertford, Chelmsford, and Maidstone were kept hanging about from day to day, and from week to week, at very great loss, and at very serious inconvenience. I understand that some representations have been made to the Government in regard to the inconvenience which arises from the present system, and when the system is revised care should be taken to provide against these inconveniences. It would be satisfactory to know, as soon as possible, whether the inconveniences which were experienced last year are likely to be repeated in the present year. There is also another point which I desire to mention. It is one which I have urged every year for three successive years, and it is one on which I have received assurances from three successive Attorney Generals that something will be done. The matter I refer to is the great delay which now occurs in the Taxing Department, and especially in the Chancery taxation. I see no earthly reason why there should not be continuous taxation all through the Long Vacation. We have three Taxing Masters, and surely it ought not to be a very difficult thing to arrange that the whole of these officers should not take their leave all at once for two months at a time. The attendance in the Taxing Office is not very strict; nobody goes there very early, and nobody remains there very late. No doubt the whole of the officers, as the hon. and learned Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison) has remarked, are extremely courteous and urbane; but their hours of attendance are very meagre indeed, and very often something or other prevents an important officer from being in his place at a very early hour in the morning. The consequence is that the suitors are kept in attendance for months and months, simply because a certain amount of clerical attendance is not given during the Long Vacation. I would ask why there should not be continuous taxation, at any rate, by one Taxing Master all through the Long Vacation? It would be a great boon, not only to solicitors, but also to successful suitors who, at present, although they have vindicated their claim to justice, are not able to obtain from justice those results to which they are entitled.

There is one point to which I wish to call the attention of the Government, which at present is the cause of considerable and unnecessary expense. Sometimes an Assize is fixed to be held in a town where there are absolutely no cases to be tried. In such cases we often have the Judges coming down, together with the grand jurors and the petty jurors, at considerable expense; tenant farmers have to leave their farms and come up to the county town, wasting several hours, and when they get there they find there are no cases to be heard at all. This is not only an expense to the persons concerned in the localities, but is also a serious expense to the country. The Judges have to come down, and all the paraphernalia of opening the Commission of Assize is gone through when there are absolutely no prisoners to be tried. I think that some alteration ought to be made, and that jurors and others summoned to attend an Assize, under such circumstances, should have notice sent to them when it is found that they will have nothing to do.

I believe that the inconveniences which have been pointed out have been inquired into already, but as far as I know without any practical result. I am inclined to believe that if a military man were placed at the head of affairs an enormous saving of expense might be effected.

I do not know whether it is possible for the Government, in dealing with this Vote, to give any kind of pledge with regard to the important matter alluded to by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Coote)—namely, the holding of an Assize, with all the attendant inconvenience and expense, when there is no business to transact. I feel that if legislation is needed in so serious a matter, and one which involves so large a cost to the country, it ought at once to take place. It is an outrage on the Judges and upon everyone else that they should be taken down to an Assize town when it is known before they get there that there is no business for them to transact. I do not know whether legislation is needed, or whether there is sufficient power to regulate the matter by an Order in Council; but I think the Government ought to take some means to prevent such a ludicrous waste of public time and public money.

, who was very imperfectly heard, was understood to say that the officers in the Taxing Office in the Court of Chancery had very laborious duties to perform; that they performed them satisfactorily; and that there would be no advantage gained by continuous sittings. In regard to the official staff of the Central Court a Commission had been appointed, under the auspices of the Lord Chief Justice of England, for the purpose of considering the nature of the Masters' and the Clerks' duties, and the number and efficiency of the staff; and he believed that arrangements would be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of that Commission.

My hon. Friend behind me has alluded to the Committee which sat in 1872–3 to inquire into these matters. I was a Member of that Committee, and we went into various questions connected with the expenditure of the Department, and our investigation resulted in several reforms being carried out. I am not at the present moment prepared to enter into a discussion upon the subjects which have been raised, and I am certainly not in a position to say that no further reforms, even upon a considerable scale, are necessary.

My hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison) is evidently under some misapprehension as to the nature of the remarks I made. I never meant to imply that the clerks who have work to do fail to do it, or that we should underpay them for the work they perform. What I said was that there are too many officials in this Department, and that there is not anything like a sufficient amount of work to keep them in employment; and, therefore, that the expenditure, seeing that the work is of a mechanical nature, might be cut down. The hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. A. O'Connor) has been good enough to say that if I would look at the Vote I would be satisfied, and would get all the information I have asked for from the Government. The hon. Member is altogether mistaken. The statement contained in the Estimates does not give me the slightest information in regard to the points to which I wish to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury. Let me repeat, as shortly as I can, what it was that I stated. I said that the Central Office of the Supreme Court of Justice, as established under the Judicature Act, consists of certain Departments in the High Court. At the time the Act was passed it was not very well understood by the Government how far the different Departments would be employed, and the number of the staff in the Central Office was fixed very much in excess of the amount of work they have to do. But that number has not been at all reduced since 1880, or since the period when I first brought the matter under the attention of the Committee of Supply. What I did on the occasion when I first brought it before the Committee in 1883 was to mention several cases in which there were highly paid clerks receiving £600 or £700 a-year, who had under them three or four other clerks, and who had such a small amount of work to perform that they were in the habit of going away for long periods. The hon. and learned Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison) asks me to give him a case in which there is a redundancy of clerks. I will refer him to the Writ Office. The fact is that that Department is divided into six separate Departments, each of which has a very highly paid clerk at its head. I stated in Committee of Supply in 1883 that these several divisions of the Writ Department had nothing like the amount of work which was necessary to keep up the staff of officials, and that, in point of fact, several of the officers do not find it necessary to be regular or constant in their attendance. Then, again, there is the Department of the Queen's Remembrancer. That is an Office which involves a very large expenditure with very little work. In point of fact, it is notorious—so notorious that the Solicitor General—Sir Farrer Herschell—representing the Government, admitted the accuracy of the statement which I made on authority which I could not doubt, but upon information which was certainly supplied to me. Sir Farrer Herschell acknowledged that my statements were true, and he stated that a sort of tentative arrangement was made in 1880 to secure a certain number of clerks for the work of the Office. It afterwards turned out that the staff appointed was in excess of the duties to be performed; and, therefore, there ought to have been a considerable reduction in the number of persons employed, in which case considerable economy would have been effected. But, although that admission was made, since that time, as far as I can see, there is no evidence whatever of any economy having been effected. Hon. Members who are new to the House will find out before long that irregularities of this kind are frequently admitted, and that reforms are promised; but the same items appear constantly in the Estimates, and there is no evidence whatever that the Government have made any reduction. In this instance I believe the fact is that, instead of having made a reduction, there are in reality a larger number of clerks altogether than there were formerly. No doubt some of them may possibly be of a less expensive character; but it is undoubtedly the fact that there are a larger number of clerks now than there were last year, and that the total expenditure is somewhat higher. The hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory) has said that a Departmental Committee have instituted an inquiry in accordance with the promise of Sir Farrer Herschell. In that case, as the Government must have had the matter brought under their notice by the action of the Departmental Committee, I think my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury might have been able to give the Committee some information as to the nature and result of their investigation. I presume that as he has refrained from doing so the information is probably not in his possession. I know that in former years the criticisms which have been passed upon this Vote have always been responded to by one of the Law Officers of the Crown—usually the Solicitor General. I do not see the Attorney General in his place, and perhaps the excuse of the Government is that they are rather deficient in their Legal Department. I should certainly like to know what steps the Government propose to take in regard to this Vote — whether the Departmental Committee is still sitting, whether they have reported, and whether the Government themselves will give some undertaking that there will be a material reduction in the expenditure next year?

I think the Committee is very much indebted to my hon. Friend for having called attention to these matters; but, although a grievance may be admitted, and may be unmistakable, it is not so easy all at once to put a remedy in force. The redundant or extra clerks are there, and they cannot be got rid of until vacancies naturally arise. When vacancies do arise the appointments will not be filled up. I would refer my hon. Friend to page 211 of the Estimates, from which he will see that a considerable reduction has been made with regard to third class, and also in the case of first-class clerks. There used to be six third-class clerks commencing at a salary of £200 and rising to £300. That has been altered, and the third-class clerks now commence at £100 rising to £200. At present, however, we have only been able to operate upon three clerkships. In regard to first-class clerks there used to be six at £600 a-year each; but there is only one now at £600, the other five having salaries upon the new scale at £500. It will therefore be seen that considerable reductions have already taken place, although the total number of clerks appears to have been slightly increased. There has been considerable difficulty in carrying out these reductions. As to the Committee to which my hon. Friend has referred, I cannot say exactly whether they have presented a Report or not; but I can assure him that it is one of the matters on which I agree with him—that it is necessary to keep down the establishment to a proper working strength. Unfortunately, when business does increase there is an immediate demand for increased assistance; but when it decreases again those reductions are not made which should be made in accordance with the decrease of business. The amount received from fees this year in connection with the Court of Judicature was £376,627, and the amount of the cost is £421,000. Whether the time will ever come—and I hope it may—when the administration of justice can be regarded as self-supporting, I cannot say; but I do not think that the cost of administration is increasing out of proportion to the amount of business transacted. I may add that there are even yet great complaints of delay in disposing of the business.

There is one point which the Secretary to the Treasury has overlooked in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). He has made no reference to the Queen's Remembrancer's Department. I may say from my own knowledge that the gentlemen connected with that Department are extremely civil. Fortunately, or rather unfortunately, I have had some experience of them; but what I have not succeeded in discovering is that they are very useful. The whole work of this Office could, I believe, be well done in other Offices, and enormous expense is incurred to the country by its existence. The business done is comparatively so little that the Law Officers of the Crown, and others connected with the administration of justice, do not appear to be quite aware of the Rules by which some of the business is governed. The Rules, indeed, are so much a matter of mystery that the learned Attorney General for the time being was not aware of them, and the Judges themselves do not appear to be much better informed. In regard to the Exchequer portion of the business the old Rules made by the Barons of Exchequer exist in a sort of patchwork form; and I have heard of one defendant who turned to his own advantage the general ignorance which prevailed.

I wish to say a word upon a point which was alluded to upon a former occasion, and to which I know that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury paid some attention himself before he accepted his present Office—an Office which he fills with so much advantage to the country. In the debate which took place the year before last a reference was made to the amounts charged for Judicature stamps. Just before the hon. Gentleman sat down he hinted that he should be glad to see the time arrive when the business of the High Court of Judicature would be self-supporting, and he added, I believe, that it was approaching that condition. Now, I hold that taking the legal business of the country as a whole it ought never to be made self-supporting, and that it never can be made self-supporting without doing injustice to some suitors, because there must always be a criminal branch of the Judicature in which the expenditure incurred in the administration of justice ought not to fall upon the suitors in the Civil Courts. If there was a strict investigation, I think it would be found beyond all question that a large surplus is derived from the fees from the Chancery Division, which really goes, to some extent, to pay the cost of the criminal business of the country. It may be that the cost of the ordinary civil business should, to a considerable extent, be recouped to the country by the fees levied; but I hold that it is an injustice to the suitors, and an entirely wrong principle, to allow to any extent a surplus to arise from any particular branch of the Judicature. It is perfectly right that the suitors in the Chancery Division should pay sufficient in stamps to allow of the proper administration of estates; but it is hardly right that they should contribute to the carrying on of the criminal or other legal business of the country. I think there is reasonable ground for supposing, from the amount received from stamps, that in some branches of Judicature they are greatly too high. It would appear from the Estimates that the total amount of the Vote for the High Court of Judicature is £421,000; but to arrive at the total cost it is necessary to add £150,000 for the salaries of the Judges. It would not be fair to add the whole of that sum, because we know that half of the time of the Common Law Division is taken up with criminal business, and no one would suggest that provision ought to be made by stamps on the civil business of the Court to cover the cost of the criminal business of the country. Looking through the items of this Vote, I think there are several which ought to be taken off, and ought not to be covered by stamps left from the suitors. Take the charge for Clerks of Assize. That is a charge which certainly ought not to fall upon the suitors. Then, again, there is the charge for District Probate Registries. I fail to see why the fees levied in the Queen's Bench and Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice should be charged with the cost of the District Probate Registries, amounting to £41,000. The whole of the duties of these District Probate Registries is taken up with proving wills and letters of administration, and the stamps taken in that Department are not included in the stamps which are included in this Estimate. Then, again, there are the costs of Election Petitions, and other items which, if deducted from this Vote, would amount to £89,899. What I say is, that it is not fair that the cost of the administration of justice in these Departments should be defrayed by the fees received from suitors' stamps. I think the suitors have a right to complain of the position in which they are placed at present; and I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will be able to give some assurance that steps will be taken to carry out what I know was in his mind some time ago—namely, an investigation into the relative amount of stamps levied in connection with different branches of the judicature business, and the cost of that part of it which ought not to be paid for by suitors' stamps in the Civil Divisions.

I am afraid that if we were to divide the fees as my hon. Friend suggests it would be necessary to discuss other sources of expenditure beyond those to which he has referred. If my hon. Friend will look at the Esti- mates again I think he will find that our expenses for the administration of justice are a very long way in excess of the fees we receive, and there is a very large margin yet to be made up before we approach anything like the balancing of one with the other. On the page of the Estimates to which my hon. Friend has referred, which gives the figure of £421,000, he will find that there are non-effective charges which amount to £200,000, in addition to the £150,000 for the salaries of the Judges, £72,000 for pensions and compensations, and there must also be added £95,000 for criminal charges under Vote 2. If my hon. Friend will add these figures together, he will find that they come to a total of £866,000, which more nearly represents the expenditure for the administration of justice than £421,000, while the fees received amount only to £376,000,

There are the fees received from bankruptcy also.

The charge for bankruptcy is a separate charge altogether, and is contained in another Vote. Therefore, if we take the foes at £376,000, and the cost of administration at £866,000, it will be seen that there is a surplus of nearly £500,000 to be made up before we can talk about the fees from civil business approaching the cost of the administration of justice. The cost of the Probate Registries included in this Vote amounted to £41,000; but the fees are only estimated at £21,000, as will appear from the items on the bottom of the page we are now on.

I did not refer to the District Registries of the Supreme Court, but to the District Probate Registries. I take it that the fees received in the District Registries go to the High Court of Justice.

The matter is a very small one—the fees amounting to £21,000. I certainly cannot hold out any hope of any reduction in the revenue derived from this source. I remember the debate which took place two or three years ago on this question, at the time my hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney) was Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I still hold the view that the general public ought not to be taxed for the administration of civil business at all. I have never been able to appreciate the argument that the general public, out of the taxes levied upon them, ought to pay the cost of private litigation. In the Court of Chancery a very large amount of the business transacted is non-contentious—especially where it relates to the administration of estates and to questions which arise between trustees and executors; but it must be borne in mind, as I have already pointed out, that the fees received are only £376,000 against an expenditure of £866,000. Of course, when the law is put in operation by the State the State should pay the cost; but I cannot hold out the slightest hope that any Government will be likely to give a friendly ear to a reduction of the small income now received in the shape of fees.

I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the cost of putting the Criminal Law into force ought to be borne by the State. Now, that is a very broad proposition; and I should like to know how far it is to be carried out. Of course, it would include indictments at the Assizes and Sessions. Does the hon. Gentleman say that the State ought to bear the expense of the whole of those prosecutions? I am not finding fault with the proposition; but I want to know how far it is to be carried out. Then, again, there is a large number of cases which are not tried at the Assizes or Sessions, but are disposed of by the magistrates in the Police Courts. They are of a similar character; but the cost falls upon the unfortunate persons who have to be tried. A man may be brought up and fined, say, 1s. and costs. He pays 1s. very readily, but the costs often run up to 14s. Are these expenses which my hon. Friend wishes to throw upon the country, or where does he draw the line? It would have a serious effect upon the Expenditure of the country if the proposition were carried out to its full extent, and therefore I would like to know where the line is to be drawn?

My right hon. Friend has placed upon the principle I laid down a much larger application than I contemplated myself. I simply meant the principle which the right hon. Gentleman enunciated himself when he introduced and carried his Bill. I think we are all greatly indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the service he has rendered in reducing these iniquitous costs. I think it is a gross injustice to fine a man 1s. 6d. and costs, and then mulct him in fees which amount to 16s. or 17s. That is a great fault in our administration of justice. The whole system is unsound, and it is really an additional mode of punishing a man. You give him a certain amount which is to go into the fine pocket, and another, and a much larger amount, which is to go into the fee pocket. In the conversation which I had with the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), I did not intend to lay down such a broad principle as that. I had rather, in my own mind, the cost at present borne by the State in connection with the Assizes and Sessions.

I do not desire that the cost of civil litigation should be thrown on the country. I do not differ much from my hon. Friend in thinking that the suitors ought to pay the ordinary costs of private litigation. What I said was, that from the way in which this Vote is made up criminal jurisdiction is mixed up with civil jurisdiction, and we have no means of knowing whether the stamps paid by the suitors are not more than are justified by the business transacted. If you ascertain the amount of fees, and set it against the cost of carrying on the business, you will find that the suitors in the Chancery Division are really contributing largely towards the cost of transacting the criminal business of the country.

I have not gathered from the Government what it is intended to do in regard to the grievous block of business in the Taxing Master's Office. None of those who have hitherto spoken on the part of the Government have dealt with the matter. Will anything be done?

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that that is a matter with which the Lord Chancellor will deal. Neither the Treasury nor the Home Secretary can deal with it.

No doubt, the work of the Revising Barristers of the country has been largely increased by the great addition which was last year made to the franchise, and yet it is proposed to take a reduced sum for this work. The Revising Barristers were called upon to do their work last year in 19 days, and that was considered by them far too short a period. They thought they ought to work a greater number of days, and that it was the number of hours that ought to be considered in fixing their remuneration, and not the number of days during which they could sit to dispose of their business. If the hours were considered, a certain number representing a day's work, the result would be very different to that which is shown. Under high pressure and the exceptional circumstances of the case last year, the Revising Barristers worked a great deal more than they could properly have been called upon to work; and you cannot expect them to do that constantly, year by year. They worked at least 10 hours a-day. I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would give me some explanation on this point, and would tell me whether it would not be possible to assess the remuneration of Revising Barristers upon a somewhat fairer footing than that adopted at present? I hope the hon. Gentleman will see his way to do this.

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend, who seems to doubt the wisdom of the proposed reduction. The Vote was largely increased last year on account of the pressure put upon the Revision owing to the shortness of time for the preparation of the Register after the passing of the Franchise Act, the General Election taking place in November. I went into the matter very carefully, in connection with the Home Office, and my impression was, in regard to the increase in the number of Revising Barristers, that there was really no necessity for it. The great pressure was only put upon these offi- cials for 19 or 20 days. To the surprise of everyone the work for the Revising Barristers to do is now less than it was before, owing to the simplicity of the franchise. The manner in which the Registers are made up points to a reduction in the work of revision rather than to an increase. There is another point which occupied the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt) when he was Home Secretary, and one which, I have no doubt, has not failed to attract the notice of his Successor—namely, the desirability of so rearranging the work of the Revising Barristers that they shall neither have too much or too little to do. They propose that in the future the work shall be apportioned reasonably, and they are of opinion that we shall have ample Barristers even with a less number than we have at present. I believe the Home Office is in correspondence with the Lord Chief Justice on the matter. The number of days the Revising Barristers sat last year amounted to 2,324. That was with 123 Barristers. The usual number is 89, and allowing each of them to sit 25 days that would give 2,225 days in all; but last year, as I say, the number of days was 2,324. The salaries are calculated upon each Revising Barrister sitting 25 days. As the hon. Member has pointed out, last year some of the Revising Barristers made the days much longer than is usually reckoned upon; but I do not think the number of hours these gentlemen were at work would make as much as 3,000 days. My desire and that of the Home Office is to see the Vote reduced. I cannot see my way, at any rate, to proposing an increase.

I think there is a very general desire for a reduction in the number of Revising Barristers. I would remind the Committee of another reason why a larger number than usual was asked for last year, and that is because the new franchise then came into operation for the first time. In the future we shall only have to deal with the normal increase in the number of electors from year to year, and I think that in all probability a less number of Revising Barristers than were employed last year will henceforward be sufficient. Exceptional industry and energy were shown by the Revising Barristers last year. They sat long hours, and got through their work with remarkable expedition. It is necessary to deal with the question of Revising Barristers, and deal with it soon, because last year we were obliged to pass an Act dealing only with the then coming year. I hope the question will be dealt with speedily, as it is important that it should be put upon a sound and substantial basis. The matter the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury referred to—of utilizing the spare time of the gentlemen who act as Revising Barristers—must be carefully considered. The alteration of the Circuits has rendered it difficult to arrange the appointments of these gentlemen over the same area as of old, and I therefore trust the Government will deal with that matter. With regard to the salaries of these gentlemen, I think no one can fairly contend that they are too highly paid, if they do their work in the future as well as they have done it in the past.

I think that now we have the Vote for the Metropolitan Police before us we ought to hear from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary some statement with regard to what it is the intention of the Government to do as to the reorganization of the Force. As I understood from the statement the right hon. Gentleman made some time ago, there were to be certain alterations made with regard to the Metropolitan Police. I understood from him that in the matter of officers there were to be certain fresh appointments made, and that there was to be a different distribution of officers to that which at present exists. Of course, to every person who may happen to live in the Metropolis the efficiency of the Police Force is their very first concern. The Force, taking it individually and taking it collectively, has done its duty exceedingly well from the time of its organization to the present day: and I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary himself stated, with regard to Sir Ed- mund Henderson, that during the 18 years that that gentleman has been the Chief Officer of the Force he has performed his duty admirably and to the satisfaction both of the right hon. Gentleman himself and those who have had te deal with the police. It was only on one unfortunate occasion that the right hon. Gentleman thought it his duty to make some comments, and on that occasion the Chief Officer thought it his duty to resign, and it was, perhaps, best, in his own interest as well as the interests of the Force, that he should do so. There has been a very remarkable statement made as to what are believed, I may say known, to be the services of Sir Edmund Henderson; and I, for one, believe that we cannot too highly appreciate those services, or state in too strong terms that we believe that during the time he was in power he did his duty to the best of his ability. The question as to whether or not on that unfortunate 8th of February he committed an error, I am not going to enter into; but I suppose the Treasury know what they are going to do in the case of Sir Edmund Henderson—namely, as to what retiring allowance he is to receive. But, with regard to the Metropolitan Police, taking it as a whole, no one, I think, will deny that in London it has done its duty admirably. The Metropolitan Police Force has been considered by people cognizant of the facts and well qualified to give an opinion to be a most efficient body of men for the discharge of those multifarious duties which devolve upon them. No doubt, some improvements may be effected in the Force; and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to state to the Committee the alterations he proposes to make in the organization of the Force?

I will divide the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend into two parts—those in which he referred to the personal services of Sir Edmund Henderson and the efficiency of the Police, and those in which he asks me what we propose to do in the way of bringing about changes in the organization of the Force. As to the first part of his observations, I adhere literally to what I said some weeks ago, when the question of the disturbance on February 8 came before the House. I spoke in the highest terms then of Sir Edmund Henderson's energy and efficiency throughout the long series of years during which he had been at the head of the police, and I stated that his services fully justified those who recommended him for the high office which he held. All that I have since heard confirms me in that impression. I cannot say this in better terms than I used on the occasion to which I allude. As to the efficiency of the Force, I believe that the Metropolitan Police are a most efficient Body. They have had very trying times to go through—I am not referring to the present year, but to past years—and I doubt whether in any capital in Europe there is a more efficient or better Force. So much for what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said, in respect to the character of the Force. I should now like to say a few words as to what is proposed to be done in connection with the organization of the Force. My hon. and gallant Friend did not quite correctly state what I said some time ago upon this question, after having made inquiries into the matter. What I said was this—That the inquiry naturally suggested certain reforms which might be made in the management and the organization of the Police Force, and I undertook to study very carefully the three previous inquiries, and then, with the assistance of the now Chief Commissioner and certain persons whom I proposed to associate with myself, to institute a very careful inquiry into the organization of the Police Force, and see what reforms, if any, could with advantage be carried out, having before me not only the evidence taken in the early part of this year, but also previous Reports, and evidence taken by previous inquiries. I said that we should not undertake this inquiry until after the appointment of the new Chief Commissioner, and when Sir Charles Warren arrived to take up his appointment I consulted him as to the time at which the inquiry should commence. Sir Charles Warren, I thought very properly and naturally, said that he should like a short time to elapse before entering upon an inquiry of that kind, and I therefore arranged with him that it should take place as soon as possible after Easter, and the inquiry will commence next week. I am thus fulfilling literally the promise which I made. I cannot say the exact day on which the inquiry will commence, but it will commence next week. I am happy to inform the Committee that my right hon. and learned Friend and late Colleague the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), who occupied the position of Attorney General for many years, has been so good as to offer to assist me; and I do not know anyone in the House who is capable of rendering, or who is likely to render, greater service in this respect than my right hon. and learned Friend. I shall also have the assistance in making the inquiry of one of the most distinguished Metropolitan Police Magistrates. We shall, therefore, I think, have a body of gentlemen most competent to undertake this searching inquiry. I do not conceal from myself that our labours will be of a very serious character, and may occupy a long time; but, as I said before, I think it better that an inquiry of this kind, after the previous inquiries that have taken place, should be conducted under the direct responsibility of the Head of the Department. I have, therefore, undertaken the responsibility; and I hope that before very long I shall be able to communicate to the House what recommendations may be made as to the better organization of the Force, or as to any additional appointments that may be made, or any economies that may be effected. My hon. and gallant Friend was quite mistaken as to what I said some time ago upon the question of appointments. All I did was to explain to the House what the general tenour of the evidence upon this question taken by the Committee was. That evidence has been laid on the Table, and beyond what was contained in the Report I did not commit myself to anything. I am glad to repeat that now, because an impression has got abroad that a large number of appointments are about to be made, and I am almost afraid to tell the Committee the number of hundreds of applications; but there are several hundreds, which I have received from gentlemen anxious to serve Her Majesty in connection with the Metropolitan Police Force. I think, now, I have answered all the points raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

I am very glad indeed to bear a great deal that has fallen from the right hon, Gentleman who has just sat down. When those unfortunate occurrences of the 8th of February took place, soon after the right hon. Gentleman came into Office, it is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman stated what he now tells the Committee with regard to Sir Edmund Henderson, and as to the conduct of the Metropolitan Police Force. But there is no doubt that at that moment the public mind was disturbed in consequence of the occurrences which had taken place, and the words of the right hon. Gentleman did a great deal to allay the apprehension which, undoubtedly, arose in certain quarters. I am very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is now able to confirm what he then said, because since that time he has had an opportunity of investigating generally the conduct and general management of the Metropolitan Police, and has become better acquainted with Sir Edmund Henderson and the services which he has rendered. The right hon. Gentleman was thus able to speak with greater authority; and I, for one, am extremely glad to hear, after the full investigation and after the careful attention which the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, paid to the question of the Metropolitan Police since he has been in Office, that he is now able to reassure the Committee and the country as to the high character and conduct of Sir Edmund Henderson, and as to the good which he has done in the Force and the services he has rendered to the country. And I am equally glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was able to bear that testimony to the general character of the Metropolitan Police Force which we have just heard, because I entirely agree with him that there is no Police Force in any country which can compare in efficiency with the Metropolitan Police Force. We may rest assured, therefore, that the general public get a good return for their money, and have a very efficient force to protect them. No one is better aware than I am of the great number and the variety of the duties which the police have to perform. I have watched the enormous growth of the Force in former years, and I have carefully watched its progress since I have been out of Office. I have seen it develop until it now numbers between 13,000 and 14,000 men. You can scarcely expect that such an army can be officered by a similar number of persons as served to officer it when it was smaller; and I can well believe that there are a great number of questions to go into and to examine very minutely in connection with it. I am glad to find that the Home Secretary will have the assistance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) in the investigation which he is going to make. No doubt the country will watch, and I am quite sure the Metropolis will watch, with great interest the proceedings of the inquiry, the Report of which will be looked for with great interest. I am pleased to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that, so far as the new Chief Commissioner is concerned, he has not been in a hurry in entering upon this matter. It was certainly wise on his part to say that he would make no recommendation, and enter into no examination, and that he would not go upon the Committee until he had had time to see what the Force was, and what was required. I hope the Committee itself will approach the subject in the same spirit of caution as the Chief Commissioner, and that they will not think there is occasion for being in a hurry to make their Report, or for making the arrangements or alterations in the Force that are necessary. I thought it only right to make this statement, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Force and Sir Edmund Henderson.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary when it is likely that the Bill for the superannuation of the Police will be brought in? It is really a very important question. We find now that the expenses are becoming extremely heavy on the county rates. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say the other day that the Government intend to bring in a Bill which would place the Superannuation Fund as to the Police Force in the same position as the money now granted by the State. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do that. That was what I understood him to say, and it was a very satisfactory statement, if I am correct. If I am not correct, I am afraid he will find when he brings in the Superannuation Bill that there will be the same opposition to it as there has been to every Superannuation Bill before, because we believe that as half of the cost of pay and clothing and maintaining the police is defrayed by the public, so when the men have done their duty to the county and to the State, only one-half the superannuation payments should fall upon the county, the remainder falling upon the Consolidated Fund.

The Bill the hon. and gallant Member refers to, and about which I said something in a recent discussion, is in an advanced state of preparation. I have, in fact, been engaged upon it to-day. I promised the House that I would bring it in as soon after Easter as possible, and I will keep my word. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken if he thinks I said a word as to how the expenses of superannuation would be met. I was very careful not to say anything of the kind. I said it would be a complete Bill, and one which I hoped the House would accept, and I trust that that promise will be adhered to.

This is an important question, and one which has taken up a great deal of the time and attention of the country. I think we should have some statement from the right hon. Gentleman.

When I bring in the Bill I will state what the details are. At the present moment I will make no statement on the subject, either positively or negatively.

desired to understand whether the Government did not propose to suspend the building of prisons under this Vote until the House had had an opportunity of discussing the matter?

No, Sir; we have no such intention. The prison at Dover is actually in course of being built, and we have no intention of interrupting the work.

had understood the Prime Minister to say that the granting of this money in no way committed the House to the building of that prison.

I would not like to take precedence of my right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary (Sir E. Assheton Cross) on such a subject as this; but I shall be very glad if he will allow me to make a few remarks, because I am going to make an appeal to him. The Bill under which the management of the prisons was transferred from the county magistrates to the Prisons Board was brought in by the right hon. Gentleman, and I remember that on that occasion I took the opportunity of opposing the right hon. Gentleman, and therefore I have some claim to return to the subject now that we have had experience of the right hon. Gentleman's measure. Now, the right hon. Gentleman himself, who, before he took the more distinguished position of Home Secretary, had had very considerable experience as a county magistrate in the county with which we both have the honour of being connected, knew as well as anybody that the county magistrates were administering the county prisons with great ability and great economy; and I opposed this transfer to the State because I believed they would not be more economically managed, and that the burdens on the taxpayers would be increased; and, in the second place, because I thought it was far better to leave with the county Justices some such real real public duty as this to perform. Now, I want the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the working of the Act which he passed has fulfilled his expectations? [Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS: Yes.] Well, I mean to say that it has not fulfilled the optimist views which he expressed when he brought in the Bill. I recollect that he said that the cost of managing and maintaining these prisons would be reduced; and he persuaded the House that by the transfer we should get the whole thing done for next to nothing Well, look at what we are doing. It is quite true that the Vote shows a small diminution this year, but that is accounted for by the falling off in the number of prisoners. In reality there is no diminution on this Vote. The charge for prisoners is £27 a-year per head; and the right hon. Gentleman will remember that at Salford and one or two other prisons in the county where he was a county magistrate himself, the cost under the magistrates was only £ 17 a-year per head. Here we are asked to pay £27 per head where we only had to pay £17 formerly; but that is not all. If you look down below at the bottom of the Vote, you will find this unfortunate item, which I am sorry to say is creeping into all our Votes—"non-effective charge." The non-effective charges have been steadily increasing, and have risen from £6,000 odd to £7,000 odd, and they will, I am sure, go on increasing in a still greater ratio during the next few years. There are other items also which are not included in this Vote, and which must, of necessity, be increasing. Such, for instance, as pensions which are becoming payable. Then I venture to predict that the cost of new buildings and works of all kinds which will be deemed necessary by the Government will go on increasing, for I regret that I have no confidence in the Government administration of such works. What I say is that all Governments are unreliable in regard to the expenditure of public money; and I say with regard to public prisons that Broadmoor was a proof to us that the cost under the Government would be greater than the cost under the county magistrates. Now, there again, one of the items which is increased is for new buildings, alterations, and repairs, the Estimate this year being nearly £4,000 more than last year. Again, the purchase of land is another item which has largely increased. Now, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, can he say, on these Estimates, that he has any reason to be satisfied with the alteration which he made in the Act he passed, and have the results reached his expectation? For my pact, I doubt the diminution of expendi- ture, and I doubt the improvement in the administration, and therefore I venture to protest against the transfer which has taken place, although I do not propose, on this occasion, to move the reduction of the Vote.

In reply to the hon. Member, Sir, I can say this, that the expectations which I had when I brought in the Bill many years ago have been in the main fulfilled by experience of the change. It is not much use talking about the figures now, because we have not got them before us, and I am sorry for that reason that this discussion has been brought on so early. I thought, however, that the hon. Gentleman might ask some questions on this subject, and therefore I asked Sir Edmund Du Cane to prepare some figures on the matter, and he kindly undertook to supply me with the necessary statistics, but they have not yet come to my hand. But still, from the correspondence which I have had on the subject, I can assure the hon. Member that the reduction of charge for the prisons in England is very great indeed, and does quite come up to expectations. I always doubted the accuracy of the accounts kept by the local magistrates, and for this reason. It was easy to know how much they spent; but in different counties they adopted different methods of calculating their receipts, and in a great number of counties the magistrates credited themselves with sums and figures for which there was little foundation when they came to be sifted, and which seemed to have been arrived at on no kind of principle. The question of the cost of a prison is different from that of prison earnings, and I do not think that I am quite satisfied as to the amount of prisoners' earnings apart from their cost; but I am certain that their earnings will go on improving; and of one thing I am quite certain, and that is that in calculating the earnings of prisoners everything is done in the most rigid manner, and not a single thing is put down to the earnings of the prisoners that ought not to be. In fact, I can say that the accounts of prisoners' earnings are kept in a far more rigid manner than they were when the prisoners were under the control of the county magistrates. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) will allow me to say that he and I have the privilege to be connected with a county which is celebrated for its finance, and I admitted at the time when I brought in the Bill that if all the accounts were kept and all the prisons were managed as those in the county of Lancaster, there would have been no necessity for the Bill at all. But when the hon. Member points out that in that county the cost of prisoners was only £17 per head, I would point out to him that there were other counties in which the cost was as much as £40 a-head, and others in which the cost was £30 per head. I am more satisfied, however, that the discipline in the prisons generally is much improved, and even though that improvement has had to be purchased at an increased cost, I am sure the country would be willing to incur the charge again. The last time this matter was discussed several authorities, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt) and the right hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), admitted that they were agreeably disappointed with the results of the measure, and there could not have been stronger testimony to its success than was then volunteered. But I was rising, Sir, for a totally different purpose than the discussion of these matters. I was rising to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Childers) whether he does not think that the time has now come to consider, at all events, the advisability of amalgamating the Commissioners of Prisons with the Directors of Convict Prisons, and whether a great saving might not be effected if those two Departments were amalgamated? The matter came before me just before I left Office; but I decided that I required more information, and that the matter required more inquiry than I could give to it. I am not at all certain whether it is not worth while considering whether something of the kind cannot be done, although I should be very sorry to recommend it upon the slight amount of information which I have. I should, therefore, like to be allowed to suggest the matter to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and to ask him to inquire into it. With reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), I am satisfied that if the hon. Member likes to move for a Return re- lating to the five years preceding the Acts, and the five years subsequent to their passing, it will be found that the results are most gratifying, and bear me out in what I have said.

I think the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Childers) should very carefully consider the suggestion which has been made by my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross), because I think he will find that very grave doubts may arise in the matter, and legislation of such importance as that should not be passed without very careful consideration. I opposed the Act of my right hon. Friend as strongly as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands); but all that has gone by now, and it appears to me that it is no use referring to what we did years ago. What we have to do is to make the present system as good as possible. When my right hon. Friend refers to the cost of prisoners per head under the county magistrates being £40 and £30, of course that was so in some cases; but it was only in the case of very small prisons where they were obliged to keep a large staff, and only had a few prisoners. With regard to prison labour, I would call attention to the fact that there is a diminution of £1,000 in the amount put down in the Estimate for this year. That was one of the questions which was raised by my right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and, for my part, I think the earnings of the prisoners appear to be small, considering what the expenditure is upon the gaols. I trust the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will go into this matter, because it does seem to be a most important one.

I will not detain the Committee by entering into the question which has been raised by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). It appears to me that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) made out a very good primâ facie case in support of his Bill, and he will not find me amongst the opponents of what has been already done. I do not believe that any figures on the subject of the former expenditure upon the gaols are in any way reliable; but I have the figures since they have been in the hands of the Government, and I am glad to say that they show a steady diminution in the charges. I am afraid, however, that there will be an increase in the Superannuation Charge, and, perhaps, there will be an increase under a few other heads. With respect to the question of the amalgamation of the two Prison Departments, I took some part in the discussion when the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman was introduced; and with the permission of the right hon. Gentleman I was in communication on the subject with Sir Edmund Du Cane, as I was much interested in the financial and administrative effect of the measure. Without going into details, I must say that I think everyone must feel that to carry on two branches of the same Department with two different sets of officers, is scarcely an economical or business-like arrangement. One of the first questions which came before me, when I took Office a few months ago, was whether the time had not come when something in the direction of amalgamation should be done; and all I have now to say is that the matter is at present under consideration, and that I shall study it with the very gravest attention. In regard to the diminution in the estimated proceeds of prison labour which was pointed out by the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), the subject is a very important one, and I thank the hon. and gallant Baronet for having mentioned it. It is true that there is a diminution of £1,000; but then it must be borne in mind that the number of prisoners has been reduced in a still larger proportion. It is important that we should reasonably utilize prison labour in the manner best suited for the public advantage, interfering as little as possible with outside trade; and all I have to say is that the matter shall have our very best attention.

No doubt, the attention of the right hon. Gentleman has been drawn to the matter to which I am about to refer. I mean the small amount of contribution which has been received from the parents. In 1885–6 the amount received in England and Wales was £17,500, whereas the Estimate for 1886–7 is only £15,000. Now, when we come to remember that the reason of the presence of the children in these schools is owing, in the majority of cases, to the neglect of the parents, because they have not taken care of their children, I think the Government should take care that such neglect is not made a source of emolument to the parents, and that they should be made to pay as much as possible. I do not think that sufficient care has been taken to collect the contribution due from the parents; and I do hope that some trouble will be taken to prevent this decrease falling off further. I will not say any more on this point now, but I earnestly trust that it will occupy the attention of the Government. In their Report of last year, the Royal Commission, dealing with these schools, made suggestions with regard to this matter; but I believe the question is still in abeyance. I hope, however, that the attention of the Government will be directed to the subject, and that the Report of the Committee will no longer be allowed to remain ineffective. It is satisfactory to find from the Inspectors' Report of last year that the schools are well conducted and their progress satisfactory; but there was one most important suggestion made by them, in which I think they followed the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and that was that the managers of these schools should have certain powers of guardianship, and should be allowed to apprentice children, or place them in homes at the expiration of their time, where they can receive a careful training, instead of being returned in all cases, and of necessity, to their parents. The parents are sometimes very unsafe people to send the children back to; and, therefore, these managers should have some powers of guardianship. Then, I think, there is great force in the recommendation that a change should be made in the system of classification—that there should be a distinction between reformatory schools on the one hand, and industrial and truant schools on the other. It seems to me, as it does to the Inspectors, that school boards should have nothing to do with industrial schools. Their business is to deal with truant children, and not to mix themselves up in industrial schools; and I trust that the superintendence of school boards will be confined to truant children. It is satisfactory to find that the growth of the cost of industrial schools has been arrested, and that there has been a very considerable decrease in the committals of juvenile offenders under 16 years of age. I find that the number committed in 1861 was 8,801, while in 1884 the number had fallen to 4,879. This appears to prove that we are proceeding on right lines, and that the endeavours which have been made to train up these children by wholesome discipline have been satisfactory, and that recruits to the miserable army of crime have greatly and most satisfactorily diminished in number. It is quite necessary that these points should be brought before the Committee, because the grants to these schools are, after all, very considerable. I see the total cost of industrial schools, according to the last Report was £370,000, the grant made from the Treasury being £183,000. With reference to reformatory schools, the total cost was £127,000, and the amount paid by the country £85,000. Therefore, seeing that the country is paying so large a sum in aid of these schools, it does appear to me, even on financial grounds, to be of great importance that larger sums should be collected from the parents. It is, however, on the educational and moral side of this question that I would impress upon the Committee the great importance of exacting from parents a fair proportion of the cost of the maintenance of their children in these schools.

Upon this matter I am desirous of bringing under consideration another point—namely, whether it would not be possible to throw all the expenses of reformatories entirely upon the Imperial Exchequer, and whether it is not a charge which could be made consistently with the Prisons Act of, I think, 1876? Now that we are suffering from such general distress, it is important that every charge of which the localities can be relieved should be imposed upon the National Exchequer. No charge which can be defrayed out of Imperial resources ought to be put upon the rates. I say this because in the Prisons Act I remember a clause especially exempting reformatories, and stating that they ought to be thrown as a charge upon the rates, and that they are not to be placed in the same position as prisons. On the ground that these places partake of that character, I think it is time that this measure of relief should be afforded by the Government. When I ask this, I ask it, I say, on the ground that it is in accordance with the Prisons Act passed some years ago.

I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary can inform me why this charge, so far as it relates to Scotland, is continued under the Home Office? I thought it was decided when the Office of Secretary for Scotland was established that all Home Office duties should be referred to him, and necessarily that the charges should be administered by him. I still, however, find some of these charges under the Home Office. With regard to the merits of this Vote, I would call attention to the fact that the sum paid by the parents of the children in Scotland is higher than the sum paid by parents in England. That appears to me to be very anomalous. I merely draw the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to it to know whether or not I am right.

The question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire (Baron Dimsdale) is one I am not competent to deal with. It has never come before me, either as Chancellor of the Exchequer or as Home Secretary, and I do not think I could deal with it in any way. As to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. F. S. Powell), I will, in the first place, say that I cannot absolutely undertake to bring in a Bill this year for dealing either wholly or partly with the question discussed by the Royal Commission. The whole of the evidence has not been very long in our hands, and though I have read the Report, I cannot say that I am in possession of sufficient information to enable me to draft a Bill to recommend to the House of Commons. Several of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission of which the hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was so valuable a Member, and upon which we had the assistance of other high authori- ties, ought to become law. My impression is that the whole subject ought to be dealt with by the Government when it brings in a Bill on the subject, and though, as I have said, I am prepared at some period to bring in a Bill, I do not think it can be introduced this Session. I think I used the same words in answering a Question upon this subject some days ago. Then my hon. Friend referred to the general aspect of the Vote and the amount recovered from parents, and he pointed out that that amount is not sufficient. This year, I think, the amount so recovered is less than last year. Well, it must be remembered that the class from which these children come is an extremely poor class. They come from the dangerous classes, who are not such as it is possible to hope can contribute largely towards the support of their children, whom it is clear that, in a great majority of cases, they have not kept. This is not a class from which we can expect to receive large sums, particularly at the present time, when a great fall in wages has taken place; but I think the Committee ought to be satisfied that we are moving in the right direction. The children who are now the subjects of treatment in reformatory schools are, as a rule, the children of parents brought up in ignorance. But we are shaping very rapidly into another state of things, and parents of the same class from whom we receive many of these children in 10 or 15 years from now, or even in much less time, will be much better instructed, and will be of a class containing a much smaller percentage of criminals than are found in it at present. Therefore, my own personal opinion is that, with the improvements in the management of the schools, and considering the class from which the children come, we shall have, before very long, not only a very considerable economy brought about, but a smaller proportion of children to send to these schools. That is my own individual opinion, and I know it is the opinion of others who have looked more deeply into the subject than I have been able to do. There can be no doubt that, at the present moment, children are sent to these schools in large numbers; but I think the number will fall off in years to come, and that it will be very much owing to measures for the improvement in the condition of the people passed by this House. The question of the contributions of parents is an important one; but I do not think that at the present moment we can expect to increase them. As time goes on we may expect to do so.

In reply to the hon. and gallant Member (Sir George Balfour), I have to say that it will be, perhaps, in his recollection that, when the Bill for the appointment of the Secretary for Scotland was before this House, it was explained that it had been considered by the Government, as, indeed, it was again considered by the House, what would be the proper place at which to draw the line between matters of lay administration transferred to the Secretary and matters of criminal concernment that were to remain with the Office of Lord Advocate. It was explained at that time to the House—I think it was made a matter for consideration, at any rate—whether reformatory and industrial schools fell under the one category or the other; and the view taken by the Government was that, as the Secretary of State had a great deal to do with these children—very similar to what he has to do with criminals in the matter of remitting sentences, and so on—it would be better, on the whole, that the reformatory and industrial schools should remain with him as before. Economy of administration may have had something to do with it; but the real reason why these institutions remained with the Secretary of State is what I have described.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered the question I addressed to him as to why it is that the parents of these children in Scotland pay more than the parents in England?

I do not know whether what the hon. and gallant Member states is the fact; but, even if it is, I am afraid that this question does not come within my province. I am not aware that the Scotch parents pay more than the English.

Before making a few remarks upon this Vote, I would say that the Scotch Members have some reason to complain that these important Scotch Votes should be brought up the first night after the Recess. It was not expected that they would be brought forward at this time; and the consequence is that very few Scotch Members are present. There is a very marked contrast between the consideration that is given to Irish Members with respect to Votes relating to Ireland and that given to Scotch Members in regard to Scotch Votes. I should be very glad if the Secretary to the Treasury or the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate could still see his way to postpone these Votes. There are certain questions arising under some of them in which some of the Scotch Members are very much interested. One important matter to which I wish to call attention is that with respect to Procurators Fiscal. There has often been a desire expressed by Scotch Members that Procurators Fiscal should be confined to the discharge of the duties of their office. It is considered, and must be felt as an anomaly, that Public Prosecutors in Scotland should be engaged in general law business, in the course of which occasions might arise when their interest to their clients and their duty to the Crown might to some extent be at variance. That has been, I believe, to a very large extent, or, at least, to some extent, the cause of difficulties which have arisen in the Western Highlands with respect to the administration of the law. I can only say that, from information I have received, very great dissatisfaction is felt in the Western Highlands with the administration of the law by the officials of the Crown. In some cases, at least, the Public Prosecutor representing the Crown is also the factor or law agent for the proprietors of the district. Now, when agrarian questions are coming very much to the front, there is very great reason to fear that Procurators Fiscal so placed may not be able to act with perfect impartiality in the questions coming before them. At all events, the position is one which no one should be called upon to occupy. I am, therefore, very anxious to hear from the Lord Advocate what has been the result of his endeavour to get Procurators Fiscal in those districts to confine themselves exclusively to the representation of the Crown, and not to engage in other business. In the earlier part of the Session the Lord Advocate, in reply to a Question put to him, informed me that negotiations were in progress, and I now wish to know if these negotiations have been completed, or whether there is a prospect of their being completed, and whether, if he does not expect soon a reasonable settlement of any difficulty which may have arisen, he will undertake, on behalf of the Government, to bring in a Bill so as to give the Government of the day greater control over Procurators Fiscal than they have at present? The condition of matters at present is certainly unsatisfactory; and when there is every prospect—I am sorry to say it—of agrarian disturbances extending throughout Scotland, it is most important that the administration of law, particularly in respect of agrarian questions, should be with someone who is in an independent position, and not connected with the landlords of the district where he acts. I shall be prepared to move the reduction of some of the salaries of Procurators Fiscal, unless I get a satisfactory explanation from the Lord Advocate as to the progress that is being made with the negotiations that have been commenced with the view of restricting certain Procurators Fiscal in the Western Districts to represent the Crown only. I think we ought also to have an assurance from Her Majesty's Government that, in filling up new appointments, they should endeavour as much as possible to have it stipulated—to lay it down as a condition to taking office—that Procurators Fiscal should confine themselves strictly to the representation of the Crown, and not engage in private business.

My hon. Friend said something at the outset with respect to these particular Votes for Scotland being taken this evening; but I am not aware that the slightest indication was given, either to the Secretary to the Treasury or to anyone else, that there was any desire that they should not be taken. I would point out that they belong exactly to the same category as the Votes that have just been gone through for England, and I am quite sure that the taking of the Scotch Votes is not in the least meant as any discourtesy to my hon. Friends from North of the Tweed. In regard to the matter raised by my hon. Friend in debate, it has been very often my duty to say something on that point, so that I shall not feel it necessary to do so again. I have more than once stated during our tenure of Office that the Government have gone a great deal in the direction my hon. Friend pointed out—more, I think, than has ever been done by any previous Government; and wherever it has been possible to get a good man to undertake the duties, and to limit himself to those duties where there is adequate employment and adequate salary, we have always followed that course, though the appointment is not with the Crown, but with the Sheriff, subject to the confirmation of the Secretary of State. I do not think we have ever found any difficulty in that respect, where there was adequate work and where adequate salary could be obtained. In regard to those particular cases in the Western Highlands that have been referred to, it is the fact that in the case of three—Stornoway, Portree, and Loch Bay, which, I think, cover the whole of the ground referred to by my hon. Friend—we did make proposals and had communications with those gentlemen as to whether arrangements could be made by which they would confine themselves to their public duties alone; and although these arrangements are not completed, I think I may say that there is every prospect of their being so. At all events, with regard to one of these gentlemen with whom I had communication, his son came up to London a few days ago to have an interview on the subject, and we received a letter dated the 24th of April explaining the terms on which this gentleman would be prepared to give up certain private practice. I do not think it would be practicable to state the terms suggested in that letter; but when I have said this much I have indicated that the matter has been taken up, and I hope that these negotiations may be carried to a satisfactory conclusion. As to what has been said about a Bill, I have, in answer to a Question, stated that in the event of those nego- tiations failing the Government, I think, may consider whether it would not be proper to introduce a Bill giving power to have a settlement effected, even if there should be an unwillingness on the part of those gentlemen to agree. I hope that will not be necessary. It is very desirable that in those particular localities there should be a severance of private and public business. Without giving a pledge on the part of the Government that they will introduce such a Bill, I say that if the negotiations fail I will certainly recommend to the very serious consideration of the Government whether such a Bill should not be prepared. With respect to the prospect of agrarian disturbances spreading over Scotland generally, I hope there is no such prospect. I have no reason to believe that there is. I have more faith in the qualities of the great bulk of my countrymen than to believe that there is any such fear.

I would suggest that the Estimate should show the number of Procurators Fiscal paid by fees, and the number paid by salary. If that were done year by year, we should see whether there is a decrease in the number continuing private practice as well as their public duties.

I am under the impression that there is a Return on that subject—that the information the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks for really exists in the form of a document laid on the Table of the House. I would point out that where you are making an estimate of fees you necessarily cannot predict what they will amount to. They vary from year to year with the amount of work done, so that while it is right that there should be a Return containing the information asked for, it will never be possible to state what the sum will be; but, averaging one year with another, the Treasury may fairly estimate an amount.

In order to meet the Lord Advocate's plea as to the difficulty of entering in the Estimates a detailed statement of the fees paid to the several officers, that the sums received by each be shown in the credited accounts.

I only rise to state in a single word the great satisfaction I feel at the statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate to the effect that there is a chance of a Bill being brought in to settle this question once for all, and to prevent Procurators Fiscal from taking private practice in the future. I have always supported the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) on this question on previous occasions, and I shall be glad to do so again. I am glad to hear that a Bill is likely to be brought in to effect this important alteration in the law.

This is the only opportunity we shall have of calling attention to the administration of justice in the Western Highlands of Scotland, and I am sure if some of my Friends who represent that district had been present to-night they would have been able to bring the matter more strongly before the Committee than I am in a position to do. I wish specially to direct the attention of the Committee to a complaint made against Sheriff Ivory last year. Formal complaints were made—detailed statements—with respect to his conduct at the Post Office in Portree, and his demand to the officials for the disclosure of the contents of telegrams. Scotch Members who have taken a particular interest in this matter have never been satisfied that there has been any real investigation into the complaints made. Those complaints were made on affidavits, sworn by respectable householders—by persons who were, to some extent at least, witnesses of the conduct of the Sheriff. Great indignation was expressed in the district and in other parts of Scotland at the conduct of the Sheriff in having endeavoured, as it was alleged he had endeavoured, to intimidate the Post Office officials into giving him the information he desired. The Crown has dealt, I believe, with one official in Portree in a very summary manner. I am not going, at present, to find fault with the authorities for the dismissal of that person. His dismissal may or may not have been justified; but I think we are entitled to ask that justice should be meted out to the supe- rior as to the inferior officials, and I ask the Lord Advocate to be informed, as we have a right to be informed, whether there was a special investigation into the allegations made against Sheriff Ivory, and if so to state to the Committee the result of that investigation? If otherwise, I shall feel it my duty to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of the salary of Sheriff Ivory.

This matter was mentioned on a previous occasion. It so happened the occasion was one of the very few occasions, after I left Office last year, on which I was not in the House. I was, however, in the House when the Vote for Law and Justice was taken, so as to be ready to make any answer that might be required of me in regard to any matter affecting the administration of law during the time that we held Office. On that occasion—I think in the end of June or in the beginning of August of last year—the Vote passed without any observation whatever or without any question whatever being raised in regard to the conduct of Sheriff Ivory. This question is a somewhat old one, though I do not complain of that; I only wish to impress upon hon. Members that when the Vote for Law and Justice was brought forward last year I was sitting in my place ready to give any explanation in regard to it, although we had then left Office. Now, if I were to go into the entire history of what has taken place in the Island of Skye during the last two or three years, I am afraid I should take up far too much of the time of the Committee. I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) confines his inquiry to what occurred in connection with the Post Office. In order to make the matter thoroughly intelligible, it would be necessary, if I were to go fully into the matter, to make reference to the condition of the Island at the time, and to the many very difficult and delicate duties it fell to the lot of the Sheriff to discharge—duties more difficult and more delicate, I think, than it has ever become the duty of a Sheriff in our time to discharge, and to which Sheriff Ivory devoted a great deal of time and anxious attention and consideration. But as the hon. Gentleman has limited his complaint to the proceedings at the Post Office, I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that Sheriff Ivory gave at the time a very full statement as to what occurred, and, without wearying the Committee, I may simply say that he had been down in the Island of Skye completing an investigation of a very delicate character, having relation chiefly, although not exclusively, to the case of the gentleman to whom my hon. Friend referred, who had been the Sheriff's clerk of the place. In the course of the investigation, Sheriff Ivory found that one of the servants of a Public Department had been made use of to convey telegrams and communications to persons in various parts of the Island, advising them to resist the officers of the law. On the Monday morning, before coming away, the Sheriff did go into the Post Office, and asked the Postmaster there whether he had received any communication directing him not to take part in the kind of proceedings it was alleged he had taken part in. There had already been a good deal of previous investigation into the conduct of that particular Postmaster, and, under these circumstances, the Sheriff did go to the Post Office to inquire whether any communication had been received by the Postmaster from his immediate and direct superiors in respect to matters which had been previously the subject of investigation. So far as my information goes, there was nothing in the actions of the Sheriff which could be characterized as intimidation. Certainly, the Sheriff did feel it his duty to point out to the Postmaster that the conduct of which he was charged with being guilty might lead to investigation. It was said that there had been a violation of the Post Office Regulations, and in respect to that I ought to explain that the state of the Post Office at that place had been such that the Surveyor General supplied the Sheriff with a private telegraphic clerk. There is no doubt that the Sheriff did go into what is called the instrument room. Had he not done so he would have been obliged to make his inquiry in the open shop—a small shop which served as the Post Office—which was hardly the kind of place to conduct the investigation with which he was charged. It certainly did not appear to me originally, and it does not appear to me now, that there is any ground whatever for the complaint made with regard to the action of the Sheriff upon the occasion in question.

I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) will not think it necessary to go to a division. What has taken place will, it is to be trusted, serve as a lesson to all public servants not to meddle with the Post Office. I rose, however, to call attention, as I have done on previous occasions, to the largeness of the judicial establishment which is kept up, not only in Scotland, but in England and Ireland. It has always appeared to me that the establishments are much larger than the population or the work justifies, and I am sure the country would be pleased to hear from the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) that steps would be taken to insure economy in this direction. Then, again, there is an item here to defray the expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. Why do not they bear their own expenses; surely they are quite capable of doing so? There is, too, another charge in this Vote which I have often mentioned; it is that of £900 for the drafting of Bills to be introduced in Parliament. I never could make out how this £900 was made up. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) will be able to afford us some information upon the point?

I should like to know whether any independent investigation was made into the truth of the charges preferred against Sheriff Ivory, or whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate simply asked the Sheriff for an explanation of the action he took? I think the public are entitled to have some independent examination, altogether apart from Sheriff Ivory's own statement. I wish to know whether the Sheriff denied absolutely that he had asked the telegraph clerk and the postmaster for information respecting the telegrams which had been sent out of the office? That is the point in respect to which I wish to have definite information from the Lord Advocate. I do not desire to press the case unduly against Sheriff Ivory. I am aware he was placed in a very difficult and trying position; but the public ought to be satisfied that the same supervision is exercised over Sheriffs in the discharge of their duties as is exercised over minor officials.

Certainly there was no separate investigation, and I do not think the circumstances of the case called for one. Some of the persons who were interested were subjected to investigation and inquiry; but I certainly think there was nothing whatever to justify Sheriff Ivory, a judicial officer, being, so to speak, put on his trial. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) has asked for an explanation in regard to an item of £900 which appears in this Vote. It is a sum which may or may not be used, but which is put annually at the disposal of the Lord Advocate in the matter of drafting Bills. Most of the Scottish Bills are drafted by the Lord Advocate's legal secretary. Sometimes, however, the assistance of other persons is obtained. I do not think that while I have been in Office the sum has ever been exhausted. I recollect that once, when, in regard to very important measures, there was a very great deal of labour by persons not connected with the official staff, and all awards were made out of this sum. As far as I recollect, about 500 guineas of this sum has been appropriated by my Department. But that has not been for the drafting of Bills only, but for going over a very large number of Bills which may or may not affect Scotland, for making amendments in a great many Bills, and for reporting upon a large number of others. But, as I have said, although the sum appears in the Vote, it does not necessarily follow that it is expended. I believe the sum appropriated towards the drafting of Scottish Bills is relatively very much less than the sum appropriated for drafting either English or Irish Bills. Instead of having a regular staff of draftsmen it has been the custom for the Lord Advocate's private secretary to do whatever drafting is required. With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir George Balfour) concerning the expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, I may say that the system observed is that the Commissioners pay into the Treasury the gross sums they receive from the Royal domains, and that then the Treasury pay out the expenses incurred. It is thought that this is preferable to allowing the Commissioners to deduct their expenses, and to pay into the Treasury only the net sum. There was a time when it was thought—I do not say without some ground—that there was something very like meddlesomeness in the administration of the Department; but I think those familiar with the details of the Department will know that it is not so now, and that there has been an endeavour for some time to compound some of the claims made, and to reduce the cost of management.

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate has said that the sum paid into the Treasury by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests is the gross and not the net sum, I will ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state what the net sum is?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has correctly stated the case. It is most unsound to allow any Department to deduct their expenses from the receipts. The rule of the Treasury is that the gross receipts shall come in. If the Commissioners were allowed to deduct their expenses we should have no control over them.

It is well the Committee should be able to exercise some control over the expenditure by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will inform the Committee in what kind of prosecutions this money has been expended. I know that several very poor but deserving men in my own constituency have been treated very hardly by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests in respect to unexhausted teinds. These men had taken up pieces of moor land, and had reclaimed them. The Crown allowed their claim to remain dormant for 200 years, or nearly so, and then came down upon these feuars, claiming one-fifth of the annual value of the land for teinds. The action of the Crown was manifestly absurd and unjust. The men were labouring men with very scanty means; but, nevertheless, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests prosecuted them for the payment of teinds—not only for existing teinds, but for teinds in arrear. I should like to know whether any part of this expenditure was incurred in carrying on those prosecutions? Moreover, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests refused to compound these cases for any smaller number of years' purchase than the cases in which the claim of the Crown had been known all along. These were felt to be very hard cases; and perhaps the Lord Advocate will be able to say whether any of this money has been spent in respect of them.

I am unable to say whether any part of this money was applied to the particular cases my hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Barclay) referred to, for I did not hear the hon. Gentleman mention the name of the place in which the cases occurred. [MR. J. W. BARCLAY: Little Brechin.] Hardship is, no doubt, sometimes done in the prosecution of these claims. It is a very painful duty on the part of those who represent the Crown to prefer such claims; but it is obvious to the Committee that it would not do to allow the Crown, which in this matter means the public, to suffer by any oversight of its officers. The Department has every disposition to settle the claims. [Mr. J. W. BARCLAY: I hold the contrary.] I must repeat that at the present time there is every disposition to settle matters as well as they can be reasonably settled, with due and fair regard to the interests of the Crown, which are, as I have said, the interests of the public.

Before this Vote is passed I should like to call the attention of the Home Secretary (Mr. Childers) or the Secretary for Scotland to the increase in the cost of the Scotch Constabulary. The increase in the cost this year is £4,000, and the increase in the number of constables 52. It is very disappointing to find that notwithstanding the improvement in the morals and habits of the people of Scotland the number of constables is being continually increased. I should like the Home Secretary, or the Secretary for Scotland, if the matter is within his control, to exercise a strict supervision over the number of constables employed and the cost of the Police Force. I had occasion recently to inquire into the circumstances of my own county, and I found that the expenditure had increased so much that the county benefited very little from the proportion which was paid by the Government. I have not the figures at command at the present moment; but, speaking from memory, I say that although the contribution by the Imperial Parliament has been increased within the last 10 years from one-quarter to one-half, the county I have the honour to represent has benefited extremely little, if any, by the increased subsidy. Now, I wish to press upon whoever is responsible the necessity for the exercise of very great vigilance and control over the increased cost of the police and over the increase of the number of men employed. The system which is in force requires an Inspector to go round and report upon the efficiency of the police. This system leads to increased expenditure. The Inspector naturally wishes to have the police in the highest state of efficiency; and he feels that the increased efficiency of the force, as he regards it, cannot be obtained without increased expenditure. An excuse for the increased expenditure is found in the fact that the Government pay one-half. This increased subsidy for the police is an alarming feature of our expenditure. It has increased not only the Imperial expenditure, but the local expenditure.

It may be taken for granted that the very important matter which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. W. Barclay) has referred to was by no means left out of view. Although the sum of £4,000, being the increase from £143,000, to £147,000, is not proportionately a very large increase, it must be kept in mind that the population and the wealth of Scotland are rapidly increasing. Even if there had been no particular reason for this increase, the fact that every year there are so many more persons to watch over might account for it. But I understand that this particular increase is due in part to the additional police of last year and this—the charges for these additions have only now become fully de- veloped—and in part to the adoption of a higher scale of pay, but particularly to a certain heavy charge, £1,861, not of an annual character, in the cost of clothing of the City of Glasgow Police. Therefore, very nearly one-half of the whole figure is of a very exceptional character. I dare say not many hon. Members will dispute what my hon. Friend said with regard to the effect of the subsidies from the Public Exchequer. It is a matter of familiar knowledge to the Committee that the Prime Minister has, more than once, pointed out that the system of grants in aid from the central funds to local funds leads to extravagance of cost. The locality thought it had got so much to spend, and proceeded to spend it lightly, with the result that to the locality there is very little saving in the end. Accordingly it has been matter for consideration, and, no doubt, will become matter for consideration under any local government scheme, whether something else should not be substituted for a system which, according to experience, has proved to be rather delusive, and which has added to the general burdens.

asked whether the sums so voted for certain branches of administrative details ought not to be placed in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland?

Personally, I am of opinion that the Secretary for Scotland should have entire control of all matters relating to Scotland. At the present moment that is not so, in consequence of the manner in which the Act creating the Office of Secretary for Scotland was drawn up. There is a little friction between the Home Office and the Secretary for Scotland at the present moment; but that is just what might have been expected. Perhaps the best course for my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) to adopt would be to put a Question on the subject to the Home Secretary or to the First Lord of the Treasury.

said, he wished to draw attention to the unequal manner in which the Income Tax was levied under the existing system. If some persons successfully evaded the tax, that was no reason why others should be called upon to pay in excess. There were many cases in which the Income Tax was not clearly defined, and on which Income Tax was paid to a higher amount than the income actually received. The Bill provided that the tax should be levied on profit or gain; but he knew an instance where a tradesman, having made for two years a loss and for three years a profit of only £8 a-year, had had during that time to pay Income Tax at the rate of about £50 a-year. Another tradesman, who had become bankrupt owing to bad trade, had been charged Income Tax up to the very last year on £3,000 per annum. Cases of this sort were very numerous, and he thought something ought to be done to prevent their recurrence in future. One institution with which he was connected afforded a typical instance. A Company had been started to establish an institution for the education of women, and it had succeeded. They had set sums aside for depreciation of property—such as leases and of furniture—and these were treated as income by the collector. But in this particular instance the first collector for the first five years had made an abatement for these items; the second collector, in the succeeding five years, would not allow any abatement on either item; while the third collector, in the third five years, permitted an abatement on only one item—namely, the depreciation of furniture. An Insurance Office with which he was connected always made an annual Return of their income, coupled with the statement that the bulk of their income was derived from investments which already paid too high a rate of Income Tax. If an Insurance Company or a savings bank made no profit at all, the case was harder still when it was called upon to pay Income Tax. A North Country savings bank which held about £400,000 in small deposits paid in Income Tax about £500 a-year, although it made no profits at all. Up to 1878 the Inland Revenue returned to this Company the Income Tax on its investments. The National Penny Bank was established about 11 years ago with philanthropic objects. It had never yet paid its way or paid a dividend, and the shareholders had spent £13,000; and yet they had in the 11 years paid nearly £2,000 in Income Tax, which was the amount that would have been levied on a flourishing business that had earned £72,000. This year the bank would pay £600, although it had not made 1d. of profit. This was not taxing income for profits, but it was taxing philanthropic institutions. With regard to house property, he ventured to assert that in London and other large towns a great number of houses were assessed at the present time a good deal above what could be absolutely got for them. One in Blackfriars Road, which was unlet for years, and for which, therefore, no premium was paid, was hired for one of the institutions he had referred to at £140, and was assessed at £154; another was hired at £45, and was assessed at £54. The right of appeal in such a case was practically useless. Rating could not be taken altogether as indicative of value when it was in excess of what property would bring in. If by combination all London were reduced one-tenth on its assessment, that would not damage local rating; but it would enormously reduce the amount London would pay to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would not be satisfied with such an arrangement. Neither had he the right to claim taxes upon a larger than the real value, even although the house might be rated in excess of that value. There was much property that was only partially let. If it was let for a part of the year the Income Tax was reduced; but if only a part of a house could be let there was no reduction. A house which brought in £53 was assessed at £100, and the tax upon that value was claimed. In another case property brought in £33, and yet paid Income Tax on £100, which was at the rate of 2s. in the pound. This plan of charging necessitated the closing of houses that otherwise might be partially let for working-class tenants. Some said that all unlet property ought to be taxed, and he did not say he objected to that in theory. That, however, was a question of itself, and until it was law it was no argument in favour of the present system by which, when property was only partially let, it should be assessed for Income Tax at its whole value. No doubt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in great pecuniary difficulties; but a system which made people pay more than they were entitled to was not a system which should be encouraged by the Government. The reason why these excessive demands were made was, to a great extent, that collectors and officials associated with the work of assessment were paid by poundage. This Bill provided for the payment of collectors by a poundage of 1½d. He hoped that clause would be amended in Committee. All associations for Income Tax reform objected to the poundage system, as based upon an immoral principle. It admitted personal interest into the determination of the amount of assessment. Men were tempted unwarrantably to increase assessments for their own pocket, and thus taxpayers were individually subjected to unjust charges. Poundage was not payment for efficient services, but for the raising of assessments. The pressure upon officials and collectors was greater with a high tax than with a low one; the poundage produced more when a tax was 8d. than when it was 3d., and yet it involved no more work or trouble. He trusted the Government would consent to do away with this poundage system. The right of appeal was in most cases a delusion, for the Commissioners were led by the collectors, who understood the rules, and worked them hardly against complaining taxpayers. He had to appeal himself to Somerset House; but although he met with every courtesy nothing came of it. His conviction and that of others concerned was that the whole system of poundage ought to be done away with; that the system by which Local Commissioners were elected should be altered; that the means of appeal should be revised; and also that it should be made clear that the payments of the tax on incomes did not exceed the real amount which the person paying it had earned. The tax was now a permanent one; and, seeing that in a time of peace it was 8d. in the pound, it was more than ever necessary that it should be levied in a fair manner.

considered the appeal made by his hon. Friend deserved the earnest consideration of the Government. He (Mr. Gregory) had also to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the promises he received when he brought his Motion forward on the 19th of March. Until this Bill was read a second time he could not place his proposals on the Paper. He believed he could have carried, his Motion; but he did not wish to take any step that was hostile to the Government. He trusted that sufficient time would be given between the second reading and the Committee stage to consider his proposals, and fairly and fully discuss them.

said, the appeal which had been made to him by his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) was a fair one, and the House certainly ought to have an opportunity of seeing his clauses before this Bill passed through Committee. He undertook that that should be so. So long as there was practical protection in the case of reversions and remote contingencies, which did not naturally reveal themselves to the collectors of the taxes, he admitted the principle for which his hon. Friend contended was a perfectly fair one. With reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley), he would not go into the details of all the cases alleged; but he could undertake that, if they were laid before him, he would have them care- fully examined. He entirely agreed that, onerous as the burden of the Income Tax must be, it was the duty of the Government to see that it was levied without a sense of injustice. It was the interest of the Government, above all, to see that that was done. With regard to the class of cases where it was said a man paid Income Tax where he derived no profits, if a man made high profits the first year, considerable profits the second year, and none the third year, the principle was to take the average. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, he would gain the advantage; for, suppose it happened that there was a small profit the first year, large profits the second year, and high profits the third year, the average would still be taken on an average of the three years. Though it was considered an apparent injustice, it was fairer to take an average. Then, as to houses, the fair criterion was the actual value of the house. As to the case of the Insurance Offices, he was really not prepared to enter into that until he knew the circumstances. On getting the facts he would carefully examine into them in connection with the officers of the Inland Revenue. In all these cases the principle had been tried out in the Courts, and the officers acted on the principles laid down. As to the question of poundage, the Government officers and collectors were not paid by poundage. The system of poundage only applied to local collectors. There was no desire on the part of the Government to exact a higher rate through that system. When a proposal was made some years ago by the Government to alter the system Members came down, under the pressure of the persons interested in the poundage system in the various localities, and mobbed the Government out of their proposals. If, however, the hon. Member would privately give him a guarantee that they should have a majority in any attempt they might make to alter the system, he would promise him that he would at once set to work to make the endeavour.

said, there was one class of property which was felt to be very hardly treated in the matter of Income Tax, and that was mining property. Collieries, in assessing their profits, were not allowed to deduct anything for depreciation, and that was felt to be a great hardship. That class of property was peculiar, because, in many cases, they had minerals which lasted for, perhaps, 20 years, and then were worked out; and, therefore, it was necessary that the whole of the money expended for the purpose of extracting those minerals from the soil should be recouped with interest during those 20 years, and there were really no profits till allowance was made for depreciation of the capital expenditure. He hoped the Government would take that point into their consideration. As the Income Tax was now permanent, it ought to be assessed as fairly as possible. This consideration applied also to the House Tax. At present, where a house was occupied partly for business and partly for residence, the assessment was laid upon the whole house. That was not fair.

said, there was another point which pressed hardly on the owners and lessors of mines. This was that these persons had to pay Income Tax in exactly the same way, and to just the same extent, as if the rent and the property would last for ever, whereas the contrary was the case. That was a point which had been brought before him on many occasions, and it was one that was felt to be a great hardship by many mine owners. He trusted that when any changes was made in the incidence of the Income Tax some relief would be afforded in that matter.

said, that he was desirous of calling the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the injustice which attended the collection of the Income Tax under Schedule B. He believed that a considerable sum was taken from the pockets of landholders unfairly, upon supposed profits, which had not been made. It was difficult for many occupiers to produce accounts, though he was aware the exemptions were considerable in the case of small occupiers. He should like to ask a question which he had often heard raised, but never answered—namely, on what principle of justice or equity Scotch occupiers of land were assessed, under this Schedule, at a less amount than English occupiers? It was the fact that Englishmen were assessed upon half their rent, where Scotch farmers were only assessed upon one-third. These last few years were times of unexampled depression in the agricultural districts; and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to remedy this inequality, by assimilating the assessments in England to those in Scotland.

said, that, no doubt, the assessments under Schedule B appeared at first sight extremely anomalous in England, Scotland, and Ireland, the charge being made not on the annual profit, but on a certain proportion of the rental. If the hon. Member would look at the 28th Report of the Inland Revenue Department of last year he would find the whole history of the circumstances under which the assessments were made, and would see that the method was introduced at the time when the assessment was first adopted, because it was supposed that farmers at that time did not keep books. Therefore, there was a sort of arbitrary assessment, on the assumption that the profits of the farm bore a certain proportion to the rent. A fraction was taken in England, a different fraction in Scotland, and, he believed, a different fraction in Ireland. But the hon. Member was aware that a person was not bound by that system. If he elected to pay on profits he might do so.

remarked that though all the capital employed in mining operations might be lost, the owner went on receiving his royalty all the same, whether the mine succeeded or not.

, in moving that the Bill be read a second time, said, he was sorry to remind the House that, since the year 1870, 21 or 22 Bills upon the same subject had been brought before the House; but, owing to the interests affected and the jealousies of different Medical Bodies the measures had all failed. He trusted that the Bill which he now asked the House to consider had removed many, if not all, of the difficulties which previous Bills had met with, and that the House on this occasion might feel itself justified in carrying it through and settling a long and harassing controversy among medical men, who were much disturbed by these Bills being constantly brought forward. There were about 16,000 medical men throughout the country. These medical men came upon the Register and practised through 19 Licensing Bodies. These Bodies were partly made up of the Universities in different parts of the Kingdom, and some of them were Licensing Corporations, such as the College of Surgeons, and the College of Physicians in the three sections of the Kingdom, and the Apothecaries Company. Through any one of these 19 Bodies a medical man could come upon the Register and might practise, and he might receive 50 or 60 titles and licences to practise from these Bodies; and the bewildered public had no idea of what was the value of these—whether they signified a sufficient qualification—which were good and which were bad. Although the public had very little means of judging of the efficiency of these titles, he ought to state at the outset that from the very fact of 21 or 22 Bills having preceded this one in the attempt to reform the Medical Profession very great improvements had taken place in the examinations of the different Licensing Bodies throughout the Kingdom. Still, the law remained in exactly the same state, and a man might—he did not say that it was so—pass a College of Surgeons, and go down to the country and attend medicinal cases—such as measles or scarlet fever—without even having passed a medical examination at all; or he might take a licence by a College of Physicians, and cut a man's leg off without having passed an examination in surgery. Therefore the state of the law—and he was not speaking now of the improved practice—was that, with any single qualification, a surgeon might practise medicine and a physician might practise surgery, and both might go down to the country and, without knowing anything about it, practise in a thickly - populated district midwifery. Since the attempt to reform the Medical Profession the different Medical Corpo- rations had shown a tendency to combine. In England the College of Surgeons and the College of Physicians had combined to have one qualifying examination both in medicine and in surgery; and the House would recollect that Her Majesty, a few days ago, laid the foundation stone of a great Examination Hall, which was to be the conjoint Examination Hall of the two leading Corporations. This was a voluntary combination, and not a statutory one. In Scotland they had done the same thing; but in Ireland they had not yet combined. The College of Surgeons, the College of Physicians, and the Apothecaries' Company in Ireland, all had their separate examinations, without any conjoint examination, so as to cover the whole area of medical knowledge necessary for practice. The leading principle of this Bill was that no man in future could get into the Profession without what he termed a qualifying examination. That examination consisted of this—that a man must pass a thorough examination in medicine, surgery, and midwifery; and with that view the Bill promoted the desire that had been shown by the Profession itself for the Corporations to combine The Universities, and especially the Scotch Universities, examined both in medicine and surgery. The Bill said that they should continue to give the degrees which they now gave, and which they were enabled by Charter to give. It also said that the Medical Corporations, if they desired to form a qualifying examination, must combine together to give a qualifying examination over the whole area which was considered necessary for the Medical Profession. But there might be injustice arising from this. In London, for instance, there was a Body called the Apothecaries' Company, which gave a very useful class of medical practitioners; and it might be shut out by the two Colleges refusing to take it into their combination. In that case the Medical Council, which was established in 1858 to rule the Profession, would, under the Bill, have power to add a sufficient number of examiners, in order by these additional examiners to secure a qualifying examination to the Apothecaries' Company. The next part of the Bill dealt with the constitution of the Medical Council. That Council was established to regulate the Profession, and see that the examinations were improved. There had been great discontent that while its nominees were appointed by the Crown to that Council, and the Universities and Corporations sent members, there was no popular representation of the large body of practitioners throughout the country. By this Bill they gave four popular representatives to be added to the Council, which representatives would be elected by the whole of the practitioners in the Kingdom—two for England, one for Scotland, and one for Ireland. These representatives would add to the strength of the Medical Council. But they might make all these rules, and the Medical Corporation might not do their duty and secure efficient examinations. The Bill, therefore, would give the Medical Council power to send Inspectors to see that the examinations were sufficient and efficient, and if they found any Body not doing its duty they might disqualify that Body from giving qualifying examinations; but the consent of the Privy Council must be obtained, so that the Body to be disqualified should have full opportunity of showing that they were giving, or were about to give, these examinations in a fit and proper manner. These were the main features of the Bill. It had perplexed medical men that Colonial and foreign practitioners practising in this country were not recognized on the Register. The Bill provided that if they were properly qualified they would be admitted on the Register, provided there were full reciprocity between the Colonies and this country in this respect. Part III. of the Bill contained miscellaneous provisions, some of them being of great importance. One of these provisions was to the effect that in the event of the Medical Council not doing its duty, and not keeping the Corporation and Universities up to the mark, it might be put in default. In that case the Privy Council would step in and establish the necessary rules to secure efficiency. As yet he had heard of no opposition to this Bill from any part of the Kingdom, either from the Universities or the Medical Corporations. Formerly there was great opposition to these Bills; but in 1884, when the last came forward, he moved an Amendment which received the approbation of every Corporation throughout the Kingdom and of all the Universities. It was upon the basis of that Amendment—that was to say, trusting to the Licensing Bodies in combination to do what they wished, and giving the Medical Council full power to enforce efficient examinations—that this Bill had been brought forward, and he believed that the second reading would meet with no opposition from them. He now recommended the Bill to the House in the hope that it might be a settlement of a long-vexed question, and that they might at last obtain the means of getting upon the Register qualified practitioners who were skilled, by their education and by their examinations, in the great branches of the Medical Profession.

said, he did not rise to oppose the second reading of the Bill, as, from inquiries which he had made, he believed the principle involved in it met with the general approval of all branches of the Profession. Indeed, he ventured to congratulate his right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair) upon having surmounted the difficulties which had hitherto prevented any advance in reform of the Acts. This he had effected, not by work just done by him since he took Office, but, as they all knew, by work carried on very ably for many years. He (Sir Henry Holland) would only make a few remarks upon that occasion, as he did not wish to stand between the House and others—two of whom he saw on the opposite side of the House—who were more competent to discuss this question. But his right hon. Friend had admitted that some Amendments would have to be made in Committee; and he (Sir Henry Holland), therefore, ventured to bring one or two points under consideration. He could not but express his regret that his right hon. Friend had not seen his way to consolidate the law upon this question. He was, of course, aware that a Consolidation Bill was somewhat more difficult to pass; but in the present case there was, in truth, only one important Act, the Act of 1858, to be dealt with; and he would still urge on his right hon. Friend to consider if he could not in Committee introduce, if not all, at all events a large part of the Act of 1858 into the Bill, and thus make a larger repeal of that Act than was now proposed. For instance, a person fully acquainted with the subject would know that the General Council only held office for a term of five years under the Act of 1858; but an outsider would suppose, from this Bill, that the great majority of the General Council held for life, and that an invidious distinction was drawn between them, and the members of the Council who are termed "representatives of the Medical Profession," but who are only to hold office for five years. As the whole constitution of the General Council was changed by the Bill, why should not the more convenient course be adopted of stating in the Bill the term of the office of all the members? Again, his right hon. Friend would find other sections of the Act practically incompatible with the provisions of the Bill, or rendered unnecessary, and those should be repealed. Thus Sections 20 to 23 of the Act, which dealt with the representation of defects in the examinations and to the remedies for such defects, would, at all events, if they were not altogether incompatible with the Bill, be rendered unnecessary by slightly adding to the provisions of Clause 4 of the Bill. And, again, Section 24 of the Act was materially altered, so far as regarded the quorum of the Privy Council, by Clause 19 of the Bill. Why should not the rest of Section 24 of the Act be embodied in Clause 19; and then the section could be repealed. There were other cases of that kind; but he did not desire to detain the House by enumerating them. Feeling, however, as he did, very strongly the advantage of consolidation, he begged his right hon. Friend to see if he could not in Committee embody in the Bill more of the Act of 1858, and thus make a larger repeal of it. There was one point of more importance to which he desired to call attention with reference to the Colonial part of the Bill. He entirely approved of the provisions in Part II., and thought they would be acceptable to the Colonies; but there was one provision the justice of which he called in question. By the Act of 31 & 32 Vict., c. 29, with which he had to deal when in the Colonial Office, Colonial Legislatures were given, and rightly given, full power to enforce registration in the Colonies of persons coming there, but who were already registered here under the Medical Act of 1858; the only Proviso being that such persons were not to be subject to examination, but were entitled to be registered on payment of fees. That Act it is proposed to repeal by Clause 25 of this Bill on and after the "appointed day," and the "appointed day" is fixed by Clause 24 to be in June, 1887. Now, that repeal was quite reasonable when applied to Colonies that came in under the Bill, and availed themselves of the advantages of Clause 11, but unreasonable when applied to Colonies that had not done so, and did not desire to do so. The repeal, therefore, should be limited, and confined to the former class of Colonies. With these observations he supported the second reading.

said, he would support the second reading of the Bill in the interests of a body of 12,000 medical practitioners, who did not, however, support it so cordially as they would have done a larger measure of medical reform, neither could he himself agree that it was in all respects perfectly satisfactory. The Medical Profession, for the last 20 years, had continuously, but so far ineffectually, struggled for the amendment of the Medical Act of 1858; and they naturally felt disappointed to find that, although during that period no less than 20 Bills had been introduced for the purpose of amending that Act, this measure was not wider in its provisions and more sweeping in its reforms. Nevertheless, they could not but recognize that it met two of the main objects for which the Medical Profession had so long struggled. The first was that every medical practitioner in the country should be completely qualified in all the branches of his Profession before being admitted to the legal status; and the other was that the Medical Profession should have a direct representation in the Governing Body. Hitherto they had been taxed to keep up a Medical Council, which had most consistently thwarted their desires, without having been represented in it. When the Act of 1858 was passed, it was said, as a reason for not granting the Profession direct representation, that there was no opportunity of doing so, because there was no register of electors to elect representatives. For more than a quarter of a century the Register had been complete; but the Profession still remained without representation. There had been a good deal said during the last few weeks about taxation without representation; but, although he could not go quite so far as some in what had been said about that principle, he could, nevertheless, as a member of the Medical Profession, heartily sympathize with the views expressed by many of his hon. Friends as to the injustice and impolicy, generally, of any portion of the community being taxed without being represented. The Medical Profession had for 28 years been taxed to keep up a Council in which it had been systematically denied any representation. He was, however, bound to recognize that the Bill under consideration made a considerable concession in that respect; although, when they came to consider the manner in which it was proposed to carry the concession into effect, they would probably be of opinion that its provisions were very inadequate. It was proposed that the Medical Council should consist of 28 members, of whom 13 would represent England, 8 Scotland, and 7 Ireland; but it would be found, on further consideration, that of those 28 members no less than 18 would be the representatives of Universities and Corporations—that was to say, of the very Bodies which it would be the duty of the Council to look after. He could not, therefore, consider that it was very fair to the members of the Profession, who would have to find the money to keep up the Medical Council, that they should only have four representatives out of the whole number of 28 members. In his opinion, that number might be very fairly increased at the expense of the Crown nominees, who were originally appointed in place of the direct representation of the Profession. He also thought the three parts of the United Kingdom were disproportionately represented in the proposed Council, having regard to the medical constituency of each part. England, with 16,978 practitioners, was to have only two directly-elected representatives; Scotland, with 2,372, one representative; and Ireland, with 2,501, also one representative. In Committee he should propose to alter that, as he thought, in the case of England, it was unfair and inadequate. England ought to have four, and the other countries one each. Altogether, including the Corporate Bodies, as the Bill stood, Ire- land would have seven and Scotland eight representatives out of the 28. But, after all, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Lyon Playfair) was to be congratulated for having produced a measure which had in its simplicity and modesty its best recommendations, and he (Dr. Foster) had much pleasure in supporting it.

said, he had great pleasure in congratulating his right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair). The Bill would be a memorable feature of his right hon. Friend's tenure of Office if, after the 22 unsuccessful attempts made by other people, he succeeded at last in placing this difficult and perplexing question on a sound legislative basis. A good deal of exaggeration had been brought forward in support of this class of legislation, and imputations had been made against many Medical Corporations—and more especially those of Scotland—which were not borne out by the fact, and certainly not by the Blue Book of the Select Committee; but it was certainly an anomalous state of things that 19 Examining Bodies should be allowed to compete for the right of conferring a qualification on a practitioner. It was quite plain that something was needed in the direction of consolidating those Examining Bodies, and giving the public that protection which they desired. This was, in his opinion, a very much better Bill than last year's. It was a much milder Bill. It did all that was wanted, and would not injure the Corporations much, if at all. There were, however, one or two points in the Bill to which he would refer, in order to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to them—for instance, Clause 3, dealing with a dual qualification; and he wished to know whether it could not be made a little more elastic, and whether a medical practitioner who had already taken one qualification elsewhere—say, his surgical education in Edinburgh—might not be allowed to take another qualification from one of those Examining Bodies which formed the Conjoint Board, say his medical qualification in London? If there was no arrangement for that, it would be an injustice not only to the Corporations, but to the students and younger men. Again, he did not know if it was absolutely necessary to give, by this statute, the power to the Medical Council of sending Inspectors to exa- minations, seeing that that was a power which they had already, and frequently exercised. He agreed that it had been a great grievance that the Profession had had no direct representation on the Council. The Crown members were men of the highest distinction; but they had always been appointed from the leading members of the Profession, and what was wanted was that some men should be appointed from the rank and file, who knew what were the general wants and wishes. It might be well if the members appointed by the Privy Council were given up, and the direct representatives were increased from four to six or eight. The Medical Council was already too cumbrous and expensive. It talked too much and did too little. It would be well if it could be cut down to one-half or one-third.

, in rising to support the second reading of the Bill, said he, also, felt great pleasure in giving vent to expressions of congratulation to his right hon. Friend (Sir Lyon Playfair) on the success he seemed likely to attain in securing the passing of a measure which would settle difficulties of long standing, affecting not only the Medical Profession, but also the public. In one respect it appeared to have a distinct advantage over the Bills which had been proposed before; because it did not suggest any one cut-and-dried State examination, but, by the influence of the Medical Council, endeavoured to bring all the various Medical Examining Boards into harmony, and to raise and establish the standard of knowledge. He was extremely pleased to find that the Universities were to have a fair share of representation; for it was important to bear in mind that it was teaching and not examination which created medical men, and every legitimate power and advantage ought to be given to the Universities in which these subjects were taught to the highest point of excellence of modern science. The modern medical student was a very different man from the students of previous generations, as the amount of scientific knowledge absolutely necessary now was very great indeed; and he was glad, therefore, to perceive that the Universities were to be properly represented. He hoped, however, that in Committee his right hon. Friend would consider the question of the representation of the newest University in the Kingdom—the Victoria University, with which he (Sir Henry Roscoe) had himself the honour to be connected, and in the foundation of which he had had a hand. The proposal at present in the Bill was that the Victoria University should be represented conjointly with the University of Durham. Without saying a word in disparagement of Durham, he would like to point out that the Victoria University was not only the University of Manchester, where they had one of the most flourishing medical schools in the Kingdom, but that other Colleges were connected with it, such as the University College of Liverpool, and it would probably, in a short time, have the Yorkshire College, Leeds; so that the Victoria University represented a very large population—as large, he believed, as the Metropolis. He trusted, therefore, that his right hon. Friend might see his way clear to give that most important, rising, and very active University a representative on the Council, and not tie it down to the University of Durham. He had no other remark to make, save that, while he was sure that the Bill would be received with great satisfaction, he hoped, at the same time, that the recommendations of the hon. Member for Chester (Dr. Foster) would receive due consideration, because he (Sir Henry Roscoe) felt that the Medical Profession was not so fully represented as it deserved to be; and, moreover, it was in England somewhat outweighed in regard to proportionate representation by the number of members from Scotland and Ireland.

said, he felt bound to express his surprise and astonishment that the previous speakers, who represented the interests of the Medical Profession in a far greater degree than himself, had not referred to what he considered to be a serious defect in the Bill, and in the law of England. It had been stated that this Bill was for the protection of the public; but he desired to point out that, at the present time, there was no protection for the public whatever in any of these Bills. It was true that the Bill permitted one general qualification for the Medical Profession, so that a medical man might not cut off a leg, or attempt to cure the measles without it; but there was no law at present to pre- vent the most ignorant and unqualified person from practising medicine as he pleased, or from attempting to cure the measles without any qualification whatever. He was aware of the offences created by the Medical Acts, and also of the offence in the eye of the law, if a person implied that he was a medical practitioner, when in reality he was not. At the same time, it was well known that persons might really practise surgery and medicine without being guilty of an offence, provided that they did not say they were licensed practitioners. That was a peculiarity of the law of England, and was not the case in any other civilized country. When they were so particular about the qualifications of medical men, and were dealing so admirably with the question as was done in this Bill, he hoped, if this was to be the final legislation upon the matter, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Lyon Playfair) would attempt to introduce some protection to the Medical Profession and to the public against those who were not only not duly qualified, but were not qualified at all.

said, that he had been a Member of the Royal Commission which had considered this question some years ago, and he was glad to say that he could assure hon. Members that this was a Bill which would probably have received the unanimous support of that Commission, because it entirely avoided the objections and difficulties which had caused so much difference of feeling among that Royal Commission, which had made no less than four separate Reports. The Bill was practically in full accord with the opinions of the Commission on those points on which they were in full agreement, and did not propose to increase the number of examinations, but merely to secure greater efficiency by providing that the qualification should, in all cases, be a qualification based upon examination in the three leading subjects. It was, therefore, in accord with the recommendations of the Commission; and, on account of its avoidance of the objections found by the Commission, he had no doubt that it would commend itself to the approval of the House. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Man- chester (Sir Henry Roscoe), whose scientific eminence increased, if possible, the weight which his opinion would otherwise have as a Member of that House, the Vice President of the Council would give full attention to his suggestion, but was unable at present to express a positive opinion. They knew how much the Victoria University had done for education in the North of England, and believed that it had a great future before it; and they would wish, if possible, to find a place for it in the arrangements to be made by this Bill; but no promise could be given at the present moment, for it must be remembered that representation given to it would be at the expense of some other institution. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Addison), as to unqualified men practising medicine, while fully admitting the importance of the question, he thought that it was one which did not arise in that Bill, but was one which, if necessary, ought to be treated in a special Bill. This Bill was one for the better securing of those persons who had qualifications; and he would suggest that it would be better not to load it with any new subject of controversy such as that suggested by the hon. and learned Member.

, in moving an Amendment to leave out in the clause certain words, in order to insert—

"And in such case any appointment by the father, by will or otherwise, under the Act 12th Charles II., cap. 24, or, in Ireland, under the Act of the Irish Parliament, 14th and 15th Charles II., cap. 19, or otherwise, shall be of no effect,"

said, the object of the Amendment was that the mother of a child should be in respect to guardianship in the same position as the father.

said, he would oppose the Amendment.

said, that the Amendment had been put and negatived before, receiving very little support. The scheme of the Bill, as settled in that House in 1884, was that, on the death of the father, the mother should be guardian; but that the father should have power to appoint a person to act with her after his death as joint guardian. Cases might occur—and frequently did occur—in which a father died, leaving a wife surviving from whom he had not been divorced, but whom, nevertheless, he knew to be an unfit person to have the custody of the children; and it would be a great hardship if he was not to be able to secure better protection for his children by appointing someone to act conjointly with her. He knew nothing which would more embitter the last moments of a father than to feel that he was unable to do this. This Amendment was really against the interest of the mother; because it was more important for her to have the right of appointing a guardian to act conjointly with the husband after her death, subject to ratification by the Court, than to be the sole guardian, if she survived her husband. They could not, therefore, accept the Amendment.

, in moving the adjournment of the debate, said, he hoped the measure would not be proceeded with that evening, on the ground that several Irish Representatives who took an interest in the Bill, especially the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. W. O'Brien) and the hon. and learned Member for South Londonderry (Mr. T. M. Healy), were absent from the House. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), who led the Party to which he (Mr. Biggar) had the honour to belong, had told the rank and file of the Party that they need not put in an appearance at Westminster till the 9th of May, which was Sunday next, the consequence being that the Irish Party now in the House was only a mere skeleton.

, in seconding the Motion for the Adjournment, said, the Ulster Members were strongly against the Bill.

said, he hoped his hon. Friends would not go to a division on the Question. He was not an Ulster Member, but he was an Ulster candidate; and he found that there was a very strong feeling in favour of the principle of the Bill, and against delay. He thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) had scored quite enough already against the Bill, by preventing its passage for several years.

said, he agreed with the hon. Member for South Sligo that there was a very strong feeling in Ulster in favour of the Bill. He therefore thought the debate ought to go on.

said, that, as three weeks' or a month's notice had been given that the Bill would be taken tonight, he should not be acting fairly to the House if he consented to the adjournment of the debate. In saying that he had no desire to steal a march on the Irish Members; and he had already postponed the Bill several times for their convenience. He should press for its second reading now. This Bill was a Treasury "annual." It was before the House for four or five years; but the very effective block of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had hitherto prevented its passage.

, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, with a single exception, it was the same as the Bill he introduced last year, which never reached a second reading in consequence of the resignation of the Government. It was drawn on the lines of the Bill which was introduced in 1884 by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard), the second reading of which was carried by a substantial majority, so that the principle of the Bill had been affirmed by the House of Commons. The Burials Act of 1880 had completely falsified the predictions of its opponents. It was said when the Act was under discussion that outrages would be committed in churchyards by those for whose benefit the measure was passed; but though six years had now elapsed, and thousands of burials had taken place under it, no such scandals as were predicted could be charged against Nonconformists, and the burials which had taken place under the Act had been as orderly and solemn as those of members of the Church of England. Scandals, indeed, there had been; but those who were responsible for them were clergymen of the Church of England. He freely admitted that the great majority of the clergy had accepted the inevitable with a good grace, and had obeyed the law. There had, however, been exceptions, and the spirit of the law, if not the letter, had occasionally been violated. This Bill dealt almost exclusively with the law of public cemeteries, which the Bill of 1880, as originally drawn, did not touch. With regard to those cemeteries the law was this. Unlike parish churchyards, the cemeteries had in general been purchased with the money of the ratepayers, and were vested in Burial Boards. These Boards were required to divide the ground into consecrated and unconsecrated parts, and to erect a chapel on the consecrated portion, which, as the law originally stood, was reserved exclusively for Church of England Services. It occurred to Lord Selborne, who had charge of the measure of 1880 in the House of Lords, and to himself (Mr. Osborne Morgan), that it might be well to deal with cemeteries as well as with churchyards; and accordingly clauses were inserted in it, legalizing the performance in the unconsecrated part, or in any chapel erected therein, of the Church of England Service, while the Nonconformist minister was allowed to offer up prayers in the consecrated portion of the cemetery, but only by the grave side. This somewhat one-sided settlement of the problem has not been a very happy one. The division of a cemetery into consecrated and unconsecrated parts, and sometimes into a third part exclusively appropriated to Roman Catholics, was, it must be admitted, not in accordance with the spirit of the times, and it was regarded by Nonconformists and Churchmen alike as a scandal and an outrage. It was this anomaly that the Bill sought to remove. Several Prelates of the Church of England had in their charges expressed approval of this course. The way in which the Bill proposed to effect its object was to permit consecration of the whole or any part of the cemetery, or of any number of graves, by the Bishops of the Church of England, or of any other denomination. While the Bill permitted consecration as a religious rite it deprived it of any legal operation, so that in future it would be quite unnecessary to provide separate burying places for different denominations. The clause would be retrospective in its operation as well as prospective, and in that it differed from the Bill of last year. The Bill would also get rid of the necessity of having in every cemetery a Church of England chapel. Some objection, he understood, had been raised to the Bill on behalf of Roman Catholics. All he could say was that if any Amendment not antagonistic to the principle of the Bill could be suggested to meet that objection he would give it his most careful attention. He hoped the principle of the Bill, supported as it was by the high authorities to whom he referred, would be sanctioned by the House. He moved the second reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say very much about this Bill; but I do not quite like the way it is recommended by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan). The right hon. and learned Gentleman says it is to be passed in order to save the Church of England, or, rather, to help the Church of England. [Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN: To protect.] But we know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to destroy the Church. ["Oh!"] lean only judge by his speeches to his constituents which I have read. It is of no use for him to say this Bill is brought in in the interest of the Church of England, when to-morrow he may be found telling his constituents he wishes the Church of England to be disestablished and disendowed. I, therefore, repudiate any argument of that kind coming from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sorry that at the commencement of his observations the right hon. and learned Gentleman alluded to the isolated instances of questionable action on the part of certain Church people which had been brought before the House. I have listened Session after Session to the questions which have been asked, and I have been gratified more than once by hearing the Secretary of State for the Home Department say he has inquired into the case, and found that there is no truth in the allegation, so far as the clergyman is concerned. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan) would find, if he inquired from his own Colleagues, that there was no truth in the charges made. I admit that, taken as a whole, the Act has been thoroughly well accepted by the clergymen of the Church of England, and I only want to make one or two remarks about this particular Bill. I think there are certain inconsistencies in the Bill. I see that by the 1st clause there is to be no distinguishing mark between the consecrated and the unconsecrated parts of the burial ground. I do not see the object of that. If a part of the ground is to be consecrated, it is just as well everybody should know which part is consecrated and which is not. The words of the clause are—

"The burial authority having jurisdiction over such burial ground shall not permit any division to be made, or other means to be taken, of marking the boundaries of or distinguishing the consecrated and unconsecrated parts of such ground."

I really cannot see the use of such a provision, especially when by Clause 3 it is expressly stated that part of the ground may be consecrated. If part of the ground is to be consecrated, it surely is to the advantage of everybody that the part consecrated, whether according to the rites of the Church of England or of the Church of Rome, or of any other Religious Body, should be marked out. Therefore, I hope that in Committee, if we get there, that part of the 1st clause may be struck out, or materially modified. I presume that what the right hon. and learned Gentleman really means to say is that the whole of the ground, whether consecrated or unconsecrated, is to be one and the same parochial ground, and any parishioner may be buried in any part of it. I have no doubt he will alter the words. Now, when we come to Clause 3, we find it is provided that any part of the ground may be consecrated according to the rules of the Church of England, or of any other Church or denomination, but "with the consent of the burial authority." I presume it is not meant to say by those words that the burial authority shall have the power to say that no part of the ground shall be consecrated at all. As the clause now stands, that would clearly be the effect of it. No doubt, what the right hon. and learned Gentleman means is this—that the Church of England, or the Church of Rome, or any other denomination, shall have the right to consecrate some part of the ground. Of course, the burial authority ought to have the power of regulating, in some shape or form, where the consecrated part ought to be; but I do not think the burial authority ought to have the power to withhold their consent to Church people, or to Roman Catholics, to have any part of the ground consecrated. I should like to know whether that is so or not, because it makes a considerable difference. I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see it is an important point. Now we come to the question of buildings. The law of cemeteries at the present time is that there must be a Church of England chapel. The right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to do away with this chapel, and to provide that—

"The burial authority may, if they think it necessary, provide a building for the performance of burial services on the occasion of funerals in any public burial ground provided by such authority."

I am no more in love with the three or four chapels in cemeteries than the right hon. and learned Gentleman is. I think it makes one very uncomfortable to see them. All that is wanted in a cemetery is a covered place, under which a certain service may take place. I think it is very much better that the religious service should take place, as in the case of Roman Catholic interments, in the Roman Catholic church, and that then all that would be required at the cemetery would be a covered place to shelter the mourners from the weather. Now it is to rest entirely with the burial authority to say whether there shall be any covered place at all in the ground. Some alteration in this respect is clearly necessary. I come to Clause 8, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has alluded. By the 12th section of the Burials Act of 1880, liberty to use the Burial Service of the Church of England in unconsecrated ground is given to the clergy of the Church of England—that is to say, if part of a cemetery was unconsecrated, and a clergyman of the Church of England chose to perform the Burial Service in such ground, he should not be subject to any ecclesiastical or civil penalty for so doing; but this Bill goes a great deal further than that, because by the 8th section it provides that—

"When the burial of any person belonging to any parish comprised in a burial district for which a public burial ground has been provided either before or after the commencement of this Act takes place in such public burial ground, the incumbent of such parish shall, if required so to do in writing by the person having the conduct of the burial of such person, be under the same obligation to perform the funeral service over such person as he would be under if such person were buried in the churchyard of the parish."

Now, there you are imposing an actual duty upon the clergy of the Church of England which they are not bound to perform at the present time. You may say, if you like, that if there is a part of the burial ground consecrated according to the rites of the Church of England, and a clergyman is required to bury in that particular part, he shall be compelled to do so. To that I have no objection; but to say that a clergyman shall be compelled to bury in unconsecrated ground when it is against his conscientious convictions, although relieved of ecclesiastical penalties, is to go a great deal further than I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to go. I trust that in this respect, also, some alteration will be made. Then we come to the question of fees. I am not going to argue with the right hon. and learned Gentleman upon the question. It seems to me that, although you preserve what are called existing rights, you are, step by step and little by little, taking away the property of the clergy, who, in the long run, must lose. Now, Sir, if this Burials Bill passes, we must bury for ever this Burials Question. I trust that if the Bill passes with the alterations which, I think, are absolutely necessary, we shall not hear of the question any more; that it will not be made a stepping-stone to advance some other attack upon the Church of England. There is one matter which I am afraid the right hon. and learned Gentleman has still left unprovided for; it was provided for in the Bill which was brought forward by Lord Beaconsfield's Government many years ago, and it was most unfortunate the provision did not pass into law. By the law of England at the present time, although a person has a right to be buried, there is no legal liability upon any body or bodies of persons to provide a burial ground. That was the starting-point of the Bill which Lord Beaconsfield's Government brought forward. I do not think it is generally known, but I undoubtedly it is the case, that there is no law to compel any parish or anyone to provide a burial ground, however much it is wanted. It is quite true that the law compels you to provide a Burial Board, or, rather, invites you to provide a Burial Board; but there is no law which compels that body of persons, or any Sanitary Authority, or anyone else, to provide a burial ground. When I was Secretary of State for the Home Department, one or two cases happened in which the parish churchyard had been closed, and then it was discovered that there was no power to compel anyone to provide another burial place. I know one place where there was no ground in which a person had a right to be buried, and we had a great deal of trouble in getting over the point. I am sorry that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has undertaken to deal with the Burial Question, he has not dealt with it in all its bearings. There remains this great blot on the law of England—that the duty is imposed upon no one of providing a burial ground. Surely such a blot ought to be removed without any delay. Perhaps I may be allowed to go back to one of the earlier clauses of the Bill in order to ask a question which I forgot to put at the commencement of my remarks. I see the Burial Authority is not to be bound to put up any buildings for the performance of the burial services if it thinks they are not necessary. I suppose that if buildings were erected, they would be intended for general use; and what I desire to ask is whether the different religious bodies may put up buildings if they choose? At the present time, although you are bound to have a Church of England chapel in a cemetery, you can have other chapels as well, and they may be charged upon the rates. What I want to know is whether private persons maybe allowed to put up buildings at their own expense, because, if they are not to be so permitted, you will make a very great change in the law? Some of the cemeteries may be in out-of-the-way places, so far as some of the inhabitants are concerned; and if people are to be deprived of the privilege of putting up, at their own expense, chapels which may be necessary for their own religious services, I maintain you impose a disability upon religious bodies which I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to see imposed.

After the remarks which my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) has made, I do not propose to occupy very much time by any observations of mine. I may say, at the outset, that I do not intend to press the Motion of which I have given Notice, but will content myself by assisting my right hon. Friend to obtain in Committee the alterations which he has just described to the House. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that the provision that there shall be no boundary mark between the consecrated and unconsecrated parts of the ground may lead to very serious hardship. I may illustrate what I mean by mentioning what is the practice in some cases. In Scotland, for instance, there are burial grounds which are unconsecrated, or parts of which are unconsecrated. It often happens that an Episcopalian, desiring to be buried there, acquires the right to some portion of the ground as a family grave, and before or after a burial takes place a form of consecration is gone through. Graves of this kind frequently have a boundary rail round them; and I take it this Bill would go so far as to even prohibit the consecration of a family grave, because it happens to have a boundary round it. If a Burial Board wants to have a burial ground which is partly consecrated and partly unconsecrated, I cannot see why there should be any objection to having such boundaries as would distinguish the consecrated from the unconsecrated parts. We hear from time to time about the feelings of Nonconformists on the subject, and I do not say that these feelings ought not to be respected. But Churchmen have a very strong feeling that their relations should be buried in consecrated ground, and I do not see why we should be left, as we may be left by this Bill, in a state of uncertainty as to whether the portion of ground allotted to the burial of our dead is consecrated or unconsecrated. I therefore hope that in Committee the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan) will allow such Amendments of this clause as will give more freedom of action, especially when that freedom of action is controlled by that which is the legal authority—namely, the Burial Board. To the retrospective character of two or three of the clauses I strongly object. Clause 3, which my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) has dealt with, states at the end—

"Provided always, that the consecration of such burial ground or part thereof, whether the same has taken place before or after the commencement of this Act shall not (save as by this Act provided) confer any right, or impose any disability."

I do not know why existing burial grounds should not remain under existing Burial Acts. It may be very well to make different regulations for new burial grounds; but I am unable to see any just reason for this retrospective action with reference to existing burial grounds, especially when, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, the existing Act has, on the whole, worked satisfactorily and well in respect to the present burial grounds. Again, the clause dealing with buildings is retrospective in its provisions. There are many burial grounds in which there is a chapel for Church people, another chapel for Roman Catholics, and a third chapel for such Nonconformists as require services. Each of these chapels is, I suppose, fitted and furnished to suit the services of the particular denomination to which it is assigned, and I do not see why, where these buildings already exist, you should do away with them. I hope, therefore, that we may strike out the retrospective words, especially as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that they were not in the original draft of the Bill. In regard to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said as to Clause 8, it appears to me that you may be putting a very onerous and difficult duty on the clergyman of the parish, because you might be calling him away from some very important duty in connection with his own church, to perform the burial service in a cemetery where there is already a chaplain to perform. I think that these are conditions which certainly do require consideration; but, as I said, I do not propose to oppose the second reading of the Bill, although I hope that due consideration will be given to these points in Committee.

Previous Acts, doubtless, have done much towards conciliation in this matter; but there are felt to be some imperfections which this Bill is intended to do away with, and I would point out that, if the objections of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) are accepted by the Government, they will do very much to mar the good effect of the Bill. Take, for instance, the very first point which he raises. He thinks it would be wrong to provide that there should be no division between the consecrated and unconsecrated ground. Now, Sir, I do not wish to say a single word of disrespect of the views hon. Gentlemen opposite may hold in regard to the value of being buried in consecrated ground. I can quite understand that view, if I do not agree with it; but the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), as well as the right hon. Gentleman, will agree that the consecration is intended to soothe and gratify the feelings or sentiments of the religious communion who value it. Surely they do not wish to set up an obvious and ostentatious distinction and outward sign between the members of their communion and other Christians. Surely that cannot be a gratification to Christian feeling. They desire that their relations and themselves, when they come to die, shall be buried in consecrated ground. Well, this Bill will not prevent them being so buried. All the Bill says is, that there shall not any longer be such an outward mark between the burial places of the different Christians as now prevail in most of our cemeteries. With regard to the 3rd clause, I should certainly myself agree that it is very undesirable that any Burial Authority should have the power to prevent all consecration. But I do not read the clause in that sense. It appears to me that what is provided is, that the consent of the Burial Authority is required for the consecration of a particular portion of the ground which it is desired to consecrate. In regard to the 8th clause, against which considerable opposition has been raised also, I cannot personally see the force of the objections. I find that it merely requires the parson of the parish to perform a service in unconsecrated ground, when called upon to do so by law. Well, this is a public burial ground, and I consider that the public clergyman ought to be called upon to perform the service. But it is said he might be called upon to do so against his conscience; but I have never heard that a clergyman should have any conscience in such a case of necessity. If a clergymen accompanies an expedition to some foreign country and one of the party dies, he has no conscientious objection to reading the burial service over the deceased when interred in uncon-secrated ground. Well, if the law imposes such a necessity in England, I cannot see what objection a clergyman could raise. I think that the tone of the discussion which has taken place shows how far the bigotry which formerly existed on the subject has been done away with, and what a vast improvement in public feeling has taken place. I only hope that the measure will be passed, and accepted as a finishing stroke to the great work of conciliation which has been going on for years.

In considering the very smooth speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) I own I cannot clear my mind of a great many things which have been done and said during the last year or so. We all of us know that a heavier attack has been made during the autumn upon the Church of England than has been attempted for many years past. That being the case, all of those who wish well to the Church, all who wish to save the Church and shield it from any further depredation, must look a little more specially—must examine a little more closely—than they would otherwise have done at these ingenious offers for the benefit of the Church, by taking away successive privileges of the Church, which certain candid friends of the Church are always willing to offer. I own, therefore, that I could not accept my right hon. and learned Friend's gift without considering it all round. He seemed to think that sufficient reason for this legislation could be found in the fact, announced with much solemnity, that six years have elapsed since the last Act dealing with this subject was passed; and so, because this enormous period of six years has gone by, the Church is again to be harassed, and the Burial Question, which we thought we had seen the last of, and which the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself admits we have tried to make the best of, will, because six years only have elapsed, again be raised in its entirety about our ears. You may say that the question which this Bill raises is a small one; but if it is a small one, the grievance with which it deals must be small, and so it constitutes an unnecessary interference and produces an uneasy feeling which prevents the possibility of our being satisfied with anything as a final settlement. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last took exception to a wall being placed between the consecrated and the unconsecrated ground, and did not seem to understand what it meant, and he was even more disturbed at the double chapels. Well, the answer is that the arrangement which does not content him is a record of the facts of the case, without necessarily bringing in feelings in any way. It shows which is the consecrated and which is the unconsecrated ground. With regard to the chapels in cemeteries, as well as elsewhere, they are practical buildings for performing practical rites. The rites connected with burial in the Church of England are one thing, and the rites of burial out of the Church of England are another, and that is the reason why it is expedient that there should be different buildings differently arranged for each. I am not going to enlarge on that fact, nor to defend the frame of mind which sees value in it; but I am simply dealing with the statement as conclusive evidence that the existence of two chapels in no way indicates religious hatred. No doubt, this Bill will be accepted by the House; but I say, and I say it very strongly, that it is an altogether unnecessary interference. It does no good that I can see, and it is calculated to raise an unpleasant feeling on the part of those who have most loyally, and at the cost of their own feelings, made the best of the Act of 1880. That being so, I must protest against its introduction.

I was glad to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Osborne Morgan) that he would be glad to consider any proposal or Amendment which may be brought forward in the Roman Catholic interest at the Committee stage, and it is on that understanding that we will not oppose its second reading. It is clear, that if the Bill were to pass in its present form, the Catholics of England and Scotland would suffer, perhaps, in a way which the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not appreciate, but still in a way which we should consider very injurious. I hope, therefore, that Amendments will be introduced in Committee.

I do not rise to oppose the second reading of the Bill. On the contrary, I think that I am expressing the feelings of all the Scotch Members, when I say that we are very much indebted to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for introducing a measure of this kind. I merely wish to call attention to the charges in the Schedule of the Bill, which are altogether too high, and will require to be very much modified in Committee. My election agent informs me that the rates in the Schedule of this Bill will very largely increase the expenses, and to a county Member, even an hon. Member informs me that in his case if only two candidates contest the seat, the scheduled rates will nearly double the Returning Officer's expenses. Moreover, I would point out that the Returning Officer in Scotland is an official of the Crown, and, as such, is very well paid, and I do not see why the candidate should be called upon to pay him for discharging a public duty. The Returning Officer is the Sheriff of the county; but the Sheriff of the county usually resides in Edinburgh, and may either perform the duty himself, or leave it to a substitute. Now, according to the Bill, the candidates are expected to pay for the Returning Officer making the journey from Edinburgh to the constituency and back again, when he thinks proper. At this moment, however, I will not enter into details. I am not going to oppose the second reading of the Bill; I only rise to say that we hope to cut down and consolidate the expenses in Committee. I understand that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour) does not wish to increase the expenses of elections, and I can assure him that in that he will be very warmly supported by Members from Scotland. On the other hand, I can assure him that unless something is done to cut down the expenses as they appear in the Schedule, it will be the duty of the Scotch Members to oppose the Bill altogether.

I am afraid the hon. Member for Forfarshire is under some slight misapprehension, because it will be noticed that the charges in the Schedule are not charges authorized to be made unless they are absolutely and necessarily incurred. They are the maximum charges to be made by the Returning Officer; but they are in no case to exceed the sums actually necessary to be paid or payable. We have a very great difficulty in Scotland in regard to a hard-and-fast line, because the conditions vary, and the distances vary so enormously; but, notwithstanding that, the charges in the Schedule are not higher than those in England—even the maximum. I shall be very glad to have the advantage of the assistance of Scottish Members in cutting down the charges still farther. One great difficulty is in regard to taxing; but in this measure, I think, we have introduced something where the corresponding English measure is defective, and I think it will furnish us with a very effective method of taxation. It provides that the power of taxing shall be with the Election Judges—in Scotland the Central Body—and that they shall submit the charges to the Court of Quarter Session, who will require strict evidence of the necessity of every charge made. The result will be that, most probably, a uniform and greatly diminished and very moderate scale will be established. Yes, I say, I shall be only too glad to have the assistance of any hon. Friends from Scotland in this matter. With regard to what has been said about the Sheriff, it is quite true that he is a "public officer," and, being so, it is not intended he should receive payment for his own services. On look- ing at the Bill, the payment will be found to be a necessary outlay and disbursement. On all matters of detail I shall be very glad to meet my hon. Friends where it is possible.